| 1 |
On 03/21/12 11:14, Justin wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for |
| 6 |
>>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into |
| 12 |
>> separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the |
| 13 |
>> package in portage), wouldn't it? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would |
| 16 |
>> be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package |
| 17 |
>> couldn't be a dep. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any |
| 21 |
> problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be |
| 22 |
> the actual LICENSE? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> justin |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Portage is a dramatic advance over the older model of distributing |
| 30 |
tarballs that are then extracted by hand and it is something that the |
| 31 |
author could both have failed to realize possible and also consider to |
| 32 |
be a different context. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
This is a possible ambiguity that I could see being exploited in a legal |
| 35 |
setting, although I admit that it is incredibly unlikely that anyone |
| 36 |
would to bother. One would have to be incredibly dense to consider |
| 37 |
portage to be a separate context, although I could imagine lawyers and |
| 38 |
judges considering it to be such. |
Archives