| 1 |
Read this one: |
| 2 |
http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> One of the things that I like about gentoo is the lack of |
| 5 |
> deep politics. |
| 6 |
|
| 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. |
| 9 |
|
| 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. |
| 14 |
|
| 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. |
| 18 |
|
| 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. |
| 22 |
|
| 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. |
| 28 |
|
| 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. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Someone get a law degree from somewhere and argue with me, |
| 38 |
please. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
--NJ |
Archives