Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Nicholas Jones <carpaski@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:33:31
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id by Chris Bainbridge
1 Read this one:
4 > One of the things that I like about gentoo is the lack of
5 > deep politics.
7 There are reasons you don't see deep politics. Most of us don't
8 like them, hence they are avoided. This is probably part of it.
10 > If someone is willing to maintain ebuild for packages that
11 > support sender id then why shouldn't gentoo host them? We
12 > already have stuff like vmware that is both patented and
13 > proprietary binary-only software.
15 Because we then have to deal with non-compliant interaction
16 with the liceneses. There is a great deal of bad-mojo here
17 if you read the full Apache position.
19 Recall that every distro has dropped XFree because of the
20 'logo adjacency' issue? Violation of the GPL... Well, that
21 is merely _one_ problem with Sender-ID.
23 We would not have the infrastructure to manage compliance
24 with such an annoying licence. I am not certain on this
25 point here, but it's entirely possible that arbitrary linking
26 of applications with sender-id may be inducing a violation
27 of the agreement. It's possible that we would be liable.
29 There are also points regarding termination of the licence
30 and the inability to transfer it. So there is no guarentee
31 that software using sender-id could be passed on to another
32 developer/team. Suddenly finding yourself in violation of
33 a license is probably not a good idea if your income is
34 zero, especially facing a prosecution with several billion
35 in the bank.
37 Someone get a law degree from somewhere and argue with me,
38 please.
40 --NJ


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id Chris Bainbridge <chrb@g.o>