| 1 |
Bret Towe wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>| > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a |
| 9 |
>>| > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short |
| 10 |
>>| > discussion¹ about several months ago. |
| 11 |
>>| |
| 12 |
>>| im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous |
| 13 |
>>| licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a |
| 14 |
>>| licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>>Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with |
| 17 |
>>LICENSE="gpl-2" as well? |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source |
| 24 |
>which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit |
| 25 |
>is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and, |
| 26 |
>assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore |
| 27 |
>all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there |
| 28 |
>it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
It does matter because Gentoo is a foundation which need to respect that |
| 33 |
"absurdity" of licenses and copyright thing. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
And i think that you, as a user, need to agree with that policy |
| 36 |
(and common sense actually) while using Gentoo. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
This is a "free software" community , not a "fuck the law" community. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives