Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Bret Towe <magnade@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 03:25:38
Message-Id: dda83e780512241922k788688f8h6ed1ac1bcaeb67d7@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue by Brian Harring
1 On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
2 > License in question...
3 >
4 > http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view
5 >
6 > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
7 > > earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
8 > > for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
9 > > and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
10 > > due to the way the licence was done
11 >
12 > Original license really sucks... doesn't matter if someone has grabbed
13 > the code and labeled it lgpl2, it still is under the monkey license.
14 >
15 >
16 > > my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
17 > > as i dont see how the licence or issues that app has anything todo
18 > > with a gentoo ebuild as all the ebuild does is fetch and install
19 > > and its only told todo so upon the user requesting it to be so
20 > > hence its the users choice to deal with the licence rather than
21 > > the developers desiding for that user
22 >
23 > We're not deciding what licenses users should use (despite pushes from
24 > both extremes looking to enforce their license view on others).
25 >
26 > That said, it's not actually the issue at hand. Issue at hand is
27 > violating someone else's license (clarified below).
28 >
29 > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
30 > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
31 > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
32 > > if i wanted that i would run debian
33 >
34 > See above, and drop the rhetoric please.
35
36 im sorry for attempting to get my idea across
37
38 > >
39 > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
40 > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
41 > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned
42 >
43 > Politics do suck.
44 >
45 > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.
46 >
47 > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own
48 > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's
49 > license. That's going to be one hard sell. ;)
50 >
51
52 i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs
53 or gentoo in general
54
55 > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
56 > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
57 > > somewhere noting it as such
58 >
59 > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be
60 > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).
61
62 how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev
63 testing it they also perform the same action as the user would?
64
65 > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled
66 > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the
67 > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source-
68 > the new project could be viewed as a new program.
69 >
70 > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all
71 > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.
72 >
73 > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to
74 > improve the source.
75
76 orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is
77
78 > This is why the original license is a major issue. Effectively,
79 > the codebase cannot be improved/fixed without the original author, due
80 > to restrictions keeping the code bound to him/her. If he/she goes
81 > mia, the project is dead developmentally due to the restrictions,
82 > which makes putting the package into portage an even harder sell.
83 >
84 > Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo,
85 > that's not the issue.
86 >
87 > The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however
88 > horrid the license is).
89 >
90 > Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or
91 > someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code
92 > converted to a different license. Latter still is tricky, since any
93 > contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off
94 > on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do
95 > centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed
96 > to it beyond original author.
97 > ~harring
98
99 i think that is beyond the scope of this list :)
100
101 and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find
102 people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen
103 so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head
104
105 --
106 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>