| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license |
| 4 |
> > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several |
| 5 |
> > months ago. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence |
| 8 |
> matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the |
| 9 |
> issue warn the user and leave it at that |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The new package uses the source of the original; we knowingly |
| 12 |
package/ship that, we're infringing on the copyright. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Say I commit it, and the original author comes back with an army of |
| 15 |
lawers. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
They sue my ass, and whoever they can think of (money is a wonderful |
| 18 |
thing, no?). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
That's why it matters. We get nailed, users too can get nailed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Re-read my email. If I didn't make it clear, I'll try and clarify it- |
| 23 |
the new package is *knowingly* violating the license, and we've |
| 24 |
already got enough info sitting in bugs.g.o that it's documented we |
| 25 |
would knowingly be violating the license if we went forward with it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hell, if the new package has modified the original source in anyway, |
| 28 |
it's already in violation of the license for not contributing the |
| 29 |
changes upstream. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Either way, it's not going to happen without one of the 2 routes I |
| 32 |
mentioned in my previous email occuring. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Yes, it would be nice having it in the tree, but the original author |
| 35 |
really shot themselves in the foot via the license they choose- we're |
| 36 |
stuck operating within those confines, thus we're boned (as are |
| 37 |
users). |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
~harring |
Archives