From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15088 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 21:33:31 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 5 Sep 2004 21:33:31 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C44de-0006cP-9d for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2004 21:33:30 +0000 Received: (qmail 11974 invoked by uid 89); 5 Sep 2004 21:33:29 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2682 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 21:33:29 +0000 Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 17:33:32 -0400 From: Nicholas Jones To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Bcc: gentoo-core@gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040905213332.GA19167@twobit.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <1094392845.2540.14.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> <200409052024.28670.chrb@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409052024.28670.chrb@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id X-Archives-Salt: a5ec8294-e0be-4f36-8a8d-2a13cf282cc7 X-Archives-Hash: 4d39a03229944baba81715d06cd57f16 --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Read this one: http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html > One of the things that I like about gentoo is the lack of > deep politics. There are reasons you don't see deep politics. Most of us don't like them, hence they are avoided. This is probably part of it. > If someone is willing to maintain ebuild for packages that > support sender id then why shouldn't gentoo host them? We > already have stuff like vmware that is both patented and > proprietary binary-only software. Because we then have to deal with non-compliant interaction with the liceneses. There is a great deal of bad-mojo here if you read the full Apache position. Recall that every distro has dropped XFree because of the 'logo adjacency' issue? Violation of the GPL... Well, that is merely _one_ problem with Sender-ID. We would not have the infrastructure to manage compliance with such an annoying licence. I am not certain on this point here, but it's entirely possible that arbitrary linking of applications with sender-id may be inducing a violation of the agreement. It's possible that we would be liable. There are also points regarding termination of the licence and the inability to transfer it. So there is no guarentee that software using sender-id could be passed on to another developer/team. Suddenly finding yourself in violation of a license is probably not a good idea if your income is zero, especially facing a prosecution with several billion in the bank. Someone get a law degree from somewhere and argue with me, please. --NJ --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBO4YsBDOEqLMd+jQRAloUAKCX0YQCgkDBcKBBCqNOiRu516uyHgCgzC0J SBGSPqmR6S4VGql4WENg3aM= =TDdR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --G4iJoqBmSsgzjUCe--