1 |
License in question... |
2 |
|
3 |
http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view |
4 |
|
5 |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote: |
6 |
> earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac, |
7 |
> for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files), |
8 |
> and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed |
9 |
> due to the way the licence was done |
10 |
|
11 |
Original license really sucks... doesn't matter if someone has grabbed |
12 |
the code and labeled it lgpl2, it still is under the monkey license. |
13 |
|
14 |
|
15 |
> my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage |
16 |
> as i dont see how the licence or issues that app has anything todo |
17 |
> with a gentoo ebuild as all the ebuild does is fetch and install |
18 |
> and its only told todo so upon the user requesting it to be so |
19 |
> hence its the users choice to deal with the licence rather than |
20 |
> the developers desiding for that user |
21 |
|
22 |
We're not deciding what licenses users should use (despite pushes from |
23 |
both extremes looking to enforce their license view on others). |
24 |
|
25 |
That said, it's not actually the issue at hand. Issue at hand is |
26 |
violating someone else's license (clarified below). |
27 |
|
28 |
> i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev |
29 |
> thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding |
30 |
> it, not forcing their ideals onto the user |
31 |
> if i wanted that i would run debian |
32 |
|
33 |
See above, and drop the rhetoric please. |
34 |
|
35 |
> |
36 |
> for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above |
37 |
> i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want |
38 |
> is the functionality of the ebuild concerned |
39 |
|
40 |
Politics do suck. |
41 |
|
42 |
That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse. |
43 |
|
44 |
Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own |
45 |
contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's |
46 |
license. That's going to be one hard sell. ;) |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable |
50 |
> of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up |
51 |
> somewhere noting it as such |
52 |
|
53 |
Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be |
54 |
doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it). |
55 |
|
56 |
It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled |
57 |
it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the |
58 |
original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source- |
59 |
the new project could be viewed as a new program. |
60 |
|
61 |
Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all |
62 |
fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream. |
63 |
|
64 |
Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to |
65 |
improve the source. |
66 |
|
67 |
This is why the original license is a major issue. Effectively, |
68 |
the codebase cannot be improved/fixed without the original author, due |
69 |
to restrictions keeping the code bound to him/her. If he/she goes |
70 |
mia, the project is dead developmentally due to the restrictions, |
71 |
which makes putting the package into portage an even harder sell. |
72 |
|
73 |
Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo, |
74 |
that's not the issue. |
75 |
|
76 |
The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however |
77 |
horrid the license is). |
78 |
|
79 |
Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or |
80 |
someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code |
81 |
converted to a different license. Latter still is tricky, since any |
82 |
contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off |
83 |
on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do |
84 |
centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed |
85 |
to it beyond original author. |
86 |
~harring |