From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19093 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 18:36:40 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 18:36:40 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C4OLy-0007uV-32 for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 18:36:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 28792 invoked by uid 89); 6 Sep 2004 18:36:25 +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 27828 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 18:36:24 +0000 Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:36:25 -0400 From: Nicholas Jones To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20040906183625.GA6489@twobit.net> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, gentoo-core@lists.gentoo.org References: <1094392845.2540.14.camel@woot.uberdavis.com> <200409052024.28670.chrb@gentoo.org> <20040905213332.GA19167@twobit.net> <200409061129.28448.chrb@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409061129.28448.chrb@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-core] Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo's policy on sender id X-Archives-Salt: f195c214-d548-4400-a87a-6e1d7cace4cf X-Archives-Hash: 454a34cc8de4cbe78c8a1ebb0fb78e00 --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > 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 belie= ve=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 al= so=20 > be excluded from gentoo? The difference is optional component versus a (required) standard. This licence applies to an Internet Standard. Something that is to be implemented Internationally on a critical infrastructure. If you wanted to modify this standard, you would be subject to Microsoft's licensing and approval _prior_ to the work, or you'd be subject to suit. You don't have to have quake3 to receive you're email from your bank, but it's entirely possible that the only way you'll be able to communicate with utilities and other businesses is via a Standard protocol that subjects you to a non-public license. What happens if you ISP is using postfix and for some reason Microsoft terminates the agreement allowing Postfix to user sender-id? Would your mail be dropped? The problem with Sender-ID is almost purely the license. If MS has no malintent with this creation, then they can provide all parts under an agreement that is suitable for GLOBAL acceptance and without termination clauses, et al.=20 --NJ --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBPK4pBDOEqLMd+jQRArefAJ99Gks/5UOUwSI4TSav1qj1G5LSywCfUDMw d/1SAculyYOrWGd2IiixOfI= =aX9B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TB36FDmn/VVEgNH/--