From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-36595-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1MFxr2-00047s-Qe
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:07:09 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5B658E0355;
	Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ganymede.vroon.org (ganymede.vroon.org [195.66.242.11])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33524E0355
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:07:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ganymede.vroon.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430B25B8221
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:02:18 +0100 (BST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at vroon.org
Received: from [192.168.253.34] (5ad5672b.bb.sky.com [90.213.103.43])
	(Authenticated sender: tony@vroon.org)
	by ganymede.vroon.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9CD3E5B8220
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:02:16 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding Nipper license to the tree
From: "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" <chainsaw@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <4A355D68.6050803@gentoo.org>
References: <4A355D68.6050803@gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-lQg8TJEmztjbYLW9b2rX"
Organization: Gentoo Linux
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:07:05 +0100
Message-Id: <1245017225.3729.6.camel@localhost>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.2 
X-Archives-Salt: 19d04b71-65a8-4372-99a2-7aaf82a351e7
X-Archives-Hash: 005d65cfbef208a936c42c24f96c1297


--=-lQg8TJEmztjbYLW9b2rX
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:28 +0100, Mike Auty wrote:
> but I thought I should ask what
> the best course of action would be here?

If it were my ebuild, I would not add the updates under the new,
draconic license and either fork the GPL'd code or mask the package for
removal.
You can not in any way guarantee that a Gentoo user is non-commercial.
Especially the patch clause would make ebuilds unsustainable.

As you say the author personally, perhaps there is a sense of reason
that you could appeal to.

> Thanks,
> Mike  5:)

Regards.
Tony V.

--=-lQg8TJEmztjbYLW9b2rX
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAko1dIkACgkQp5vW4rUFj5q2FgCeNCMkKP5SCdDD+csyJYblImff
H24AoKmT3SwgPxk177HFUGgbwif+B8Al
=tWhL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-lQg8TJEmztjbYLW9b2rX--