Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-nfp] Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:21:15
Message-Id: 20080820152103.739b9fcb@vrm378-02
Antarus suggested I get your opinion on this, since in theory you are
the body who would be held accountable if I am misinterpreting the

Thanks for your input!  I will not add the patch mentioned until I hear
a definite 'aye' from you folks.


Begin forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400
From: Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate
some opinions on Bug and whether the
binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license
agreement from Adobe:

Specifically, here is the passage I'm wondering about:

2.5.1  You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works
based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile,
disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the
Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to
decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to
achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and
you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to
achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information

I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since:

1) This is specifically to make it operable with
2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support
for instead of, but they have not done so (or
responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware).

Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not?

Jim Ramsay
Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm)


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>