| 1 |
On Wed, 17 May 2006 20:11:57 +0200 Wernfried Haas <amne@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| That's not the point as i wasn't talking about single developers but |
| 4 |
| Gentoo as an organisation. Paludis is not in any way under Gentoo's |
| 5 |
| control. If the paludis devs decide to change the license for paludis |
| 6 |
| 1.0 to a commercial one, Gentoo would be unable do anything about it |
| 7 |
| (except fork the last GPLed version). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
And what if the Bash licence changes? Or the Python licence? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
| If the paludis devs decide to |
| 12 |
| terminate all ricers with RTFM, Gentoo can't do anything about it. I |
| 13 |
| guess the list could be continued with other examples. |
| 14 |
| I'm not saying the paludis devs may do such a thing, but they could |
| 15 |
| and Gentoo couldn't do anything about it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yes, and the Bash developers *could* decide to make new Bash versions |
| 18 |
print out an ASCII art diagram of a BSD daemon sporking Larry. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
| As long a project is within Gentoo, every developer does at least have |
| 21 |
| some influence, be it by voting the council or whatsoever. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
And just what do you think would happen if the council were to demand |
| 24 |
that Portage implements a new feature? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
| As for your long standing feature requests, this has nothing to do |
| 27 |
| with the issue, unless you're trying to bash the portage team, which |
| 28 |
| has nothing to do with this thread. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sure it does. It's a perfect demonstration that the needs and demands |
| 31 |
of Gentoo have no influence over what happens to Portage. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
| 35 |
Mail : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives