Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> > > > if i wanted that i would run debian
> > >
> > > See above, and drop the rhetoric please.
> >
> > im sorry for attempting to get my idea across
>
> Nothing wrong with discussion- you're pushing a contraversial idea.
> Don't need rhetoric to get what you want, you need *facts* and *good*
> arguements as to why your way is right.

only fact i had is i saw a bug being closed with explianation as to
why so i inquired and here we are

> Rhetoric doesn't fall under that, since someone will see through it
> and the bs flaming will start up shortly after- thus it should be
> avoided (and yes, I'm sure I'm probably being a hypocrit here).
>
>
> > > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
> > > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
> > > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned
> > >
> > > Politics do suck.
> > >
> > > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.
> > >
> > > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own
> > > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's
> > > license.  That's going to be one hard sell. ;)
> > >
> >
> > i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs
> > or gentoo in general
>
> Again, you're asking us to take part in license violation- depending
> on the lawyerly interpretation of the license, either we're actually
> in violation of the license, or we're enabling license violation.
>
> Already made it clear in the previous email, you're asking folks who
> have their hard work protected by licenses to knowingly violate a
> license.
>
> Ain't going to hapen.
>
>
> > > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
> > > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
> > > > somewhere noting it as such
> > >
> > > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be
> > > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).
> >
> > how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev
> > testing it they also perform the same action as the user would?
>
> See above.
>
>
> > > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled
> > > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the
> > > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source-
> > > the new project could be viewed as a new program.
> > >
> > > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all
> > > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.
> > >
> > > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to
> > > improve the source.
> >
> > orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is
>
> Original matters, because the new project is using that codebase-
> they're bound by the license of the original regardless of whether or
> not they abide by it (iow, regardless of if they're violating the law
> or not).
>
> > and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find
> > people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen
> > so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head
>
> *Cough* there is the possibility that folks who do packaging of
> software might have a clue on the licensing issues here, and be seeing
> something you aren't :)
>
> Yes it's arrogant/elitist, but my point is that our differing opinion
> might have valid logic behind it.

im sorry to say i dont go with that unless they point me to that logic
i dont blindly follow with the rest of the sheep

> Basically... don't talk _at_ people, talk and listen (discourse).

i do but it can still end up being just talk at

> ~harring
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list