| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Ian Stakenvicius <axs@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> So, RESTRICT="mirror" would turn into |
| 3 |
> RESTRICT="officially-dont-mirror-but-actually-do-just-in-case-distfiles-are-dropped-upstream-but-after-we-still-cant-officially-mirror-them-due-to-license-and-copyright-infringement-anyway" |
| 4 |
> ? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Pretty sure, no matter what, we aren't going to be allowed to host |
| 7 |
> these distfiles, even if the upstream host disappears, even if the |
| 8 |
> company goes under. If we can't get permission to officially mirror |
| 9 |
> the files then the company is active and alive, i don't see how it's |
| 10 |
> likely to get permission after the distfiles/server/company goes away. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Either you're trying very hard to not get it or you haven't read my |
| 13 |
previous email carefully enough. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Let me try and be clearer. The packages I'm concerned with have had |
| 16 |
their distfiles backed up. We're not yet in that situation but the day |
| 17 |
the publisher stops distributing these distfiles, I'll be ready to |
| 18 |
send the right email to the (hopefully) right person and hope for the |
| 19 |
best. I was suggesting we did that more often. And with that I'll stop |
| 20 |
here, because these childish arguments are not worth any more of my |
| 21 |
time. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Denis. |
Archives