From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8577 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 10:30:20 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 10:30:20 +0000 Received: from newton.random-chaos.org.uk ([195.82.107.148]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C4GlP-0007Ws-1n for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:30:20 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by newton.random-chaos.org.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.21) id 1C4Fu8-0006S1-Kk for arch-gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:35:16 +0100 Received: (qmail 32147 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2004 10:29:35 +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 6647 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 10:29:35 +0000 From: Chris Bainbridge Organization: Gentoo Foundation To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:29:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <1094392845.2540.14.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> <200409052024.28670.chrb@gentoo.org> <20040905213332.GA19167@twobit.net> In-Reply-To: <20040905213332.GA19167@twobit.net> Cc: gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200409061129.28448.chrb@gentoo.org> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2004 10:29:58.0031 (UTC) FILETIME=[752F91F0:01C493FC] Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id X-Archives-Salt: cef68862-7026-4c86-ab00-913063914572 X-Archives-Hash: 8ff2d6c103fb35b96bf223180814d961 On Sunday 05 September 2004 22:33, Nicholas Jones wrote: > 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. =46rom the gentoo point of view all of these problems are restrictions on=20 redistribution. At worst, RESTRICT=3D"nomirror" solves them. Lets at least = have=20 a consistent policy - we already have software (particularly games) that we= =20 aren't allowed to redistribute. Sender-id software is no different. Having= =20 said that, I doubt that this patent actually prohibits 3rd party mirrors li= ke=20 cnet. Theres no doubt that this is a bad patent/license from a software developer= =20 point of view, but gentoo is not in the business of developing mail server= =20 software. The decision of whether to support sender-id should be left in th= e=20 hands of people who are (or are we going to start patching postfix to remov= e=20 code?). It's a slippery slope to reject ebuilds because we don't agree with the=20 licenses imposed on the developers of those packages, or because we believe= =20 that they violate software patents. Where do you draw the line? There is no= =20 doubt that the linux kernel violates some (bad) patents. Should it=20 potentially be removed? How about quake3 - I'm not allowed to rebrand and=20 redistribute it without paying a lot of money for a license. Should it also= =20 be excluded from gentoo? > Someone get a law degree from somewhere and argue with me, > please. You can email Microsofts licensing people and they will forward any questio= ns=20 they can't answer to their lawyers. It might be useful to do this anyway, f= or=20 future protection. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list