| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Maybe find yourself a lawyer, and ask him. We're all volunteers, |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I've already done the research. There is no legal requirement to |
| 6 |
contact the authors before changing the SRC_URI. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> and we're no in way obligated to give legal advices to you or anyone |
| 9 |
> in particular. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I'm not asking for legal advice. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Somebody suggested a solution. ulm objected to that solution. I'm |
| 14 |
merely asking that those trying to stop a problem from being solved to |
| 15 |
point to a written policy, because that is how virtually every |
| 16 |
organization on the planet works. If you don't put the impetus on the |
| 17 |
person trying to block action, then nothing gets done, because posting |
| 18 |
an objection on a mailing list costs nothing. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Especially if it all started with the tone 'how dare you |
| 21 |
> remove this?!' |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I certainly never objected to the removal of the package. It didn't |
| 25 |
fetch and was unmaintained. Of course it should have been |
| 26 |
treecleaned. Maybe somebody else had that tone, and if that concerns |
| 27 |
you I suggest you take it up with them. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives