Gentoo Archives: gentoo-nfp

From: Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o>
To: gentoo-nfp@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-nfp] Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 12:41:49
Message-Id: 1219322505.3097.0@spike
In Reply to: [gentoo-nfp] Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation by Jim Ramsay
Hash: SHA1

On 2008.08.20 20:21, Jim Ramsay wrote:


IANAL either.
> > 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,
Thats jusrisdiction dependent, it says "under applicable law" - you may be allowed to do these things in some regions but not others. Presumably Gentoo did not do this anywhere and only wants to mirror the resulting patch.
> [if?] 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 available.
Game over ... its not essential by your own admission. You have an alternative which you state. [snip]
> 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). is a nice to have. I would liken it to the phrase "best endevours" which should never be used between contracting parties. It means none better. You would bankrupt the company to achieve the stated aim. (That has been tested in a UK court). "all reasonable endevours" is fine because proving that more could reasonably have been done is not worth the risk.
> > Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not? > > -- > Jim Ramsay > Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm) >
I don't see any of this addressing distribution of a binary patch, which is fairly reasonable, as it tries to make it as legally difficult to create one as possible, so the possibility of distrubution does not occur. Adobe must know the patch exists. Since the above does not appear to address the distrubution of a patch that is not supposed to exist, has anyone asked Adobe about distrubution of the patch ? - -- Regards, Roy Bamford (NeddySeagoon) a member of gentoo-ops forum-mods treecleaners trustees -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkitYokACgkQTE4/y7nJvasigwCfQrSWwGExxN3RPm4PEJfWLZ8Y dMwAn2DbnY/hOcRmnHOXDdbCqhxkAoBk =wdXq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-nfp] Fw: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation Jim Ramsay <lack@g.o>