| 1 |
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 08:11:57PM +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 06:32:38PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> That's not the point as i wasn't talking about single developers but |
| 5 |
> Gentoo as an organisation. Paludis is not in any way under Gentoo's |
| 6 |
> control. If the paludis devs decide to change the license for paludis |
| 7 |
> 1.0 to a commercial one, Gentoo would be unable do anything about it |
| 8 |
> (except fork the last GPLed version). If the paludis devs decide to |
| 9 |
> terminate all ricers with RTFM, Gentoo can't do anything about it. I |
| 10 |
> guess the list could be continued with other examples. |
| 11 |
> I'm not saying the paludis devs may do such a thing, but they could |
| 12 |
> and Gentoo couldn't do anything about it. |
| 13 |
> As long a project is within Gentoo, every developer does at least have |
| 14 |
> some influence, be it by voting the council or whatsoever. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> As for your long standing feature requests, this has nothing to do |
| 17 |
> with the issue, unless you're trying to bash the portage team, which |
| 18 |
> has nothing to do with this thread. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Then you remove the profile just like you would remove any piece |
| 21 |
of software where the license is unacceptable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
The arguments are getting more and more "creative". It's almost |
| 24 |
like asking what we will do when gcc turns into a commercial |
| 25 |
product. |
| 26 |
Please try to stay realistic and don't invent strange new |
| 27 |
theoretical problems. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Christian |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives