On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -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
>
> What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally culpable
> for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in our tree
> violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds then the
> original author would have the legal right to take action against us. It
> is not just a question of letting the user decide if they want to use an
> illegally licensed program, we would be facilitating such an act. That
> is something we cannot and will not do.
THANK YOU!
now if someone had said that eariler this wouldnt have gone that far
is this documented somewhere so devs later on when dealing
with such an item again can just post a url to it on the bug
and help prevent this from happening again?
> --
> Daniel Ostrow
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDrhKz/qoUyhrWzV0RAqP5AJ9VUOKz0gv/QU3dbOpjb766ZO+zFwCdFKn2
> 0485JEETpHLoyiayCt43elc=
> =UmgO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
