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 |