"Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chain...@gentoo.org> posted 1245111501.11818.5.ca...@localhost, excerpted below, on Tue, 16 Jun 2009 01:18:21 +0100:
> On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 00:58 +0100, Mike Auty wrote: >> So I'll leave the source version out of the tree, but I'd like thoughts >> on using RPM as a solution? Also I don't know whether an exception >> could be made for Gentoo, but equally I don't know how to phrase one of >> them either (Gentoo Foundation or all Gentoo developers), so I'm >> hesitant to ask. If anyone has any other ideas or possibilities, do >> let me know. Thanks... > > Drop it from the tree entirely. Leave it to them to provide ebuilds. > Obviously they do not want this software to be packaged by you, if they > did they wouldn't put this intricate obstacle course in your way. > Sometimes life can be so simple. I agree.[1] The intent of the license is clear enough, make it proprietary, with enough questions about the legal implications and effectiveness of said license that it's simply not worth the hassle and risk. I honestly don't know why he's trying to do this. As others have pointed out, either his software is valuable enough to be worth forking, and it WILL fork (with the entire community shipping the freedomware fork), or it's not, and he's effectively sentencing it to some likely obscure proprietaryware niche. The friendly dual-license route would seem much more effective at doing what he seems to want to do. <shrug> ..... [1] I wrote (and revised...) an earlier reply coming to about the same conclusion, but decided the SNR wasn't high enough to send and the revisions weren't helping, so I sent it to /dev/null. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
