| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-07-05 at 04:07 +0100, twofourtysix wrote: |
| 2 |
> Are these people prepared to back up their views by removing from the |
| 3 |
> tree all those ebuilds for software made by companies who make heavy |
| 4 |
> use of software patents? That would be far more effective, and may |
| 5 |
> even encourage a few mainstream tech news sources to stop ignoring the |
| 6 |
> issue. I can think of quite a few software-patent friendly companies |
| 7 |
> who are currently gaining significant good PR from being 'supported' |
| 8 |
> by Gentoo. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I can tell you one thing. If anyone removes a package that *I* maintain |
| 11 |
just because of software patents, then there will be hell to pay. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I could give a damn about this issue, but removing choice from our |
| 14 |
users, especially without contacting the maintainer of the package, is |
| 15 |
grounds for disciplinary action in my eyes. Some of our users don't |
| 16 |
care about patents one way or another. Why should we have a vocal group |
| 17 |
out there forcing their position on another? Maybe we should start |
| 18 |
giving back all of our donations from AMD and NVidia. After all, they |
| 19 |
have lots of patents. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
This is really starting to get out of hand. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Don't bother responding to my post, as I'm adding a procmail rule for |
| 24 |
this as we speak. It has nothing to do with Gentoo development, and |
| 25 |
doesn't belong on *this* list. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager |
| 30 |
Games - Developer |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives