| 1 |
On Tue, 07 Apr 2020 14:44:04 +0100 |
| 2 |
Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Gentoo must not single out any package for special treatment. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Indeed. Cases like this just demonstrate that something about the way |
| 7 |
we do things is somehow inadequate. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The idea that "what we have works" is something we get away with, |
| 10 |
because people just exclude the things that would break things. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Sometimes you just need some case like this to make an example of us. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Like happened with Rust: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
- It took a while and a bunch of legal threats for them to publish a |
| 17 |
GDPR compliance privacy notice. |
| 18 |
- They (crates.io) still haven't made a clear definition of what legal |
| 19 |
conditions apply and what may or may not be uploaded (Some people are |
| 20 |
presently testing those waters by publishing code with copyright |
| 21 |
notices and "no distribution" clauses, in the hope they can get their |
| 22 |
ass into gear and make it clear ) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
And I've seen people "test the system" for CPAN too. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Its clear we need *something* in place, but I doubt that "something" is |
| 27 |
something that can be achieved in an appropriate way with the way our |
| 28 |
tooling currently works. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
( In that, its basically an all-or-nothing scenario for the most part, |
| 31 |
where finer grained and policy-based exlusions, like ACCEPT_LICENSE, |
| 32 |
make sense to employ ) |
Archives