On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote: > On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous > > license > > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several > > months ago. > > im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence > matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the > issue warn the user and leave it at that
The new package uses the source of the original; we knowingly package/ship that, we're infringing on the copyright. Say I commit it, and the original author comes back with an army of lawers. They sue my ass, and whoever they can think of (money is a wonderful thing, no?). That's why it matters. We get nailed, users too can get nailed. Re-read my email. If I didn't make it clear, I'll try and clarify it- the new package is *knowingly* violating the license, and we've already got enough info sitting in bugs.g.o that it's documented we would knowingly be violating the license if we went forward with it. Hell, if the new package has modified the original source in anyway, it's already in violation of the license for not contributing the changes upstream. Either way, it's not going to happen without one of the 2 routes I mentioned in my previous email occuring. Yes, it would be nice having it in the tree, but the original author really shot themselves in the foot via the license they choose- we're stuck operating within those confines, thus we're boned (as are users). ~harring
pgpnmT0bncekn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
