1 |
Hello, |
2 |
|
3 |
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>>>>>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
>>>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has |
7 |
>>>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery |
8 |
>>>> slope. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> We don't, and for a package that comes with a license (as the vast |
11 |
>>> majority of packages does) it normally isn't necessary. |
12 |
> |
13 |
>> Why isn't this necessary? How do you know the person issuing the |
14 |
>> license actually has the right to issue it? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package |
17 |
> that has a known upstream and that is also carried by other distros, |
18 |
> and downloading a license-less package from a random location on the |
19 |
> internet? |
20 |
> |
21 |
>>> The package in question doesn't come with any license though, which |
22 |
>>> means that only the copyright holder has the right to distribute |
23 |
>>> it. So I believe that some extra care is justified, especially when |
24 |
>>> the upstream location of the distfile has changed. |
25 |
> |
26 |
>> Why? We don't redistribute anything that is copyrighted. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> Users download the file, and I think that we are responsible to have |
29 |
> only such SRC_URIs in our ebuilds from where they can obtain the |
30 |
> package without being exposed to potential legal issues. |
31 |
> |
32 |
|
33 |
Downloading does not imply committing a felony. As far as anyone can |
34 |
tell it is impossible to prosecute someone for downloading something |
35 |
they already own (regardless of what any EULA has claimed). Further, |
36 |
copyrights lapse if not enforced. Depending on how long that download |
37 |
has been up the original rightsholder has forfeited their claim to |
38 |
their work. |
39 |
|
40 |
It's also really hard to convince a judge or jury that I am to blame |
41 |
if someone follows my instructions (save for specific cases where I |
42 |
could be considered a subject matter expert). E.g. it's possible to |
43 |
sell radio kits that are illegal to put together and operate. |
44 |
|
45 |
>> Are you arguing that merely linking to the file is illegal? If so, |
46 |
>> then you better get the list archives purged. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> Arguably, items in SRC_URI aren't even hyperlinks. And no, I don't |
49 |
> think that such linking is illegal. IANAL, though. |
50 |
> |
51 |
|
52 |
It is at this point I would suggest that you have defeated your own argument. |
53 |
|
54 |
>>> We don't know this for sure unless we ask the author. So whoever is |
55 |
>>> interested in keeping the package in the tree should sort these |
56 |
>>> issues out. |
57 |
> |
58 |
>> Perhaps if we want to enforce a policy like this we should take the |
59 |
>> time to actually write the policy down. As far as I can tell Gentoo |
60 |
>> has no such policy currently. |
61 |
> |
62 |
> The old Games Ebuild Howto [1] has this: |
63 |
> |
64 |
> | LICENSE |
65 |
> | |
66 |
> | The license is an important point in your ebuild. It is also a |
67 |
> | common place for making mistakes. Try to check the license on any |
68 |
> | ebuild that you submit. Often times, the license will be in a |
69 |
> | COPYING file, distributed in the package's tarball. If the license |
70 |
> | is not readily apparent, try contacting the authors of the package |
71 |
> | for clarification. [...] |
72 |
> |
73 |
> I propose to add the paragraph above to the devmanual's licenses |
74 |
> section. |
75 |
> |
76 |
|
77 |
Should the Gentoo foundation include a disclaimer that the software |
78 |
distributed by it is not to be used to build ballistic missiles or run |
79 |
nuclear arms programs? Users might do those things, and Gentoo might |
80 |
be liable for the consequences if they do. |
81 |
|
82 |
|
83 |
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
84 |
> Do you really need me to put it on the Council agenda? |
85 |
|
86 |
Sir, please see my above comment about building ballistic missiles. It |
87 |
may be important for the Gentoo Foundation to add a disclaimer similar |
88 |
to the one I mentioned. I would hate for the Foundation or any of its |
89 |
administrators or contributors to be found guilty of aiding and |
90 |
abetting terrorists. |
91 |
|
92 |
Respectfully, |
93 |
R0b0t1 |