| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has |
| 5 |
>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery slope. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> We don't, and for a package that comes with a license (as the vast |
| 8 |
> majority of packages does) it normally isn't necessary. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Why isn't this necessary? How do you know the person issuing the |
| 11 |
license actually has the right to issue it? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> The package in question doesn't come with any license though, which |
| 15 |
> means that only the copyright holder has the right to distribute it. |
| 16 |
> So I believe that some extra care is justified, especially when the |
| 17 |
> upstream location of the distfile has changed. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Why? We don't redistribute anything that is copyrighted. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Are you arguing that merely linking to the file is illegal? If so, |
| 22 |
then you better get the list archives purged. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> We don't know this for sure unless we ask the author. So whoever is |
| 26 |
> interested in keeping the package in the tree should sort these issues |
| 27 |
> out. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Perhaps if we want to enforce a policy like this we should take the |
| 31 |
time to actually write the policy down. As far as I can tell Gentoo |
| 32 |
has no such policy currently. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Rich |
Archives