IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate some opinions on Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/234542 and whether the binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license agreement from Adobe:
http://www.adobe.com/products/eulas/pdfs/Reader_Player_WWEULA-Combined-20060724_1430.pdf 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 available. I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since: 1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, 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)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
