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 ) 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:02:16 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Adding Nipper license to the tree From: "Tony \"Chainsaw\" Vroon" 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail 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--