1 |
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote: |
2 |
> > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev |
3 |
> > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding |
4 |
> > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user |
5 |
> > > if i wanted that i would run debian |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > See above, and drop the rhetoric please. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> im sorry for attempting to get my idea across |
10 |
|
11 |
Nothing wrong with discussion- you're pushing a contraversial idea. |
12 |
Don't need rhetoric to get what you want, you need *facts* and *good* |
13 |
arguements as to why your way is right. |
14 |
|
15 |
Rhetoric doesn't fall under that, since someone will see through it |
16 |
and the bs flaming will start up shortly after- thus it should be |
17 |
avoided (and yes, I'm sure I'm probably being a hypocrit here). |
18 |
|
19 |
|
20 |
> > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above |
21 |
> > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want |
22 |
> > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Politics do suck. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own |
29 |
> > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's |
30 |
> > license. That's going to be one hard sell. ;) |
31 |
> > |
32 |
> |
33 |
> i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs |
34 |
> or gentoo in general |
35 |
|
36 |
Again, you're asking us to take part in license violation- depending |
37 |
on the lawyerly interpretation of the license, either we're actually |
38 |
in violation of the license, or we're enabling license violation. |
39 |
|
40 |
Already made it clear in the previous email, you're asking folks who |
41 |
have their hard work protected by licenses to knowingly violate a |
42 |
license. |
43 |
|
44 |
Ain't going to hapen. |
45 |
|
46 |
|
47 |
> > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable |
48 |
> > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up |
49 |
> > > somewhere noting it as such |
50 |
> > |
51 |
> > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be |
52 |
> > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it). |
53 |
> |
54 |
> how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev |
55 |
> testing it they also perform the same action as the user would? |
56 |
|
57 |
See above. |
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
> > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled |
61 |
> > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the |
62 |
> > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source- |
63 |
> > the new project could be viewed as a new program. |
64 |
> > |
65 |
> > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all |
66 |
> > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to |
69 |
> > improve the source. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is |
72 |
|
73 |
Original matters, because the new project is using that codebase- |
74 |
they're bound by the license of the original regardless of whether or |
75 |
not they abide by it (iow, regardless of if they're violating the law |
76 |
or not). |
77 |
|
78 |
> and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find |
79 |
> people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen |
80 |
> so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head |
81 |
|
82 |
*Cough* there is the possibility that folks who do packaging of |
83 |
software might have a clue on the licensing issues here, and be seeing |
84 |
something you aren't :) |
85 |
|
86 |
Yes it's arrogant/elitist, but my point is that our differing opinion |
87 |
might have valid logic behind it. |
88 |
|
89 |
Basically... don't talk _at_ people, talk and listen (discourse). |
90 |
~harring |