1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2019, Thomas Deutschmann wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On 2019-07-04 18:37, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
4 |
>> Sorry, I don't understand. If you knew in advance (how?) that Intel was |
5 |
>> going to revert, why had you added an ebuild for that 20180807 snapshot |
6 |
>> version with the restrictive terms, in the first place [3]? |
7 |
|
8 |
> What do you mean? "intel-microcode-20180807_p20180808.ebuild" didn't add |
9 |
> new restriction or changed anything. Yes, I missed that license change |
10 |
> when 20180807 release was added. If I would have noticed that license |
11 |
> change at time, I wouldn't have bumped the package. |
12 |
|
13 |
Exactly, and nobody will blame you for that mistake, because the license |
14 |
change was unannounced and easy to miss. |
15 |
|
16 |
>> Also with the information available at that point, we had to assume that |
17 |
>> redistribution of that particular microcode-20180807.tgz tarball was not |
18 |
>> allowed, so the ebuild should have had mirror restriction. |
19 |
|
20 |
> No, my point was, at the time when people within in Gentoo learned about |
21 |
> the changed license through the Debian bug (weeks after the bump), they |
22 |
> suddenly switched into panic mode. There wasn't even time to wait for |
23 |
> Debian and other, no, people not knowing *any* details and weren't aware |
24 |
> of any communication between maintainers across distributions just |
25 |
> thought that they must do something and they must do it immediately. |
26 |
|
27 |
> Please see the IRC discussion we had in #gentoo-dev around 2018-08-23. I |
28 |
> told everyone involved before a trustee changed ebuild that Intel will |
29 |
> revert. The information was leaked through Intel PR team starting to |
30 |
> give interviews because the changed license received media attention |
31 |
> that day. May I remind everyone about the ridiculous discussion we had |
32 |
> about whether Intel(!) PR(!) is credible or if we can't trust because |
33 |
> they aren't lawyers and maybe they aren't allowed to make such a |
34 |
> statement? An hour later I was able to confirm that information through |
35 |
> Intel OEM partner channel. All I was asking for was time. But Matthew |
36 |
> ignored everything I said, rushed forward and pushed that change with |
37 |
> trustee hat. |
38 |
|
39 |
Thanks, with this additional context about the IRC discussion, things |
40 |
become clearer. I was going by the information visible in bug 664134, |
41 |
where there is no indication of any disagreement. |
42 |
|
43 |
Ulrich |