[gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
due to the way the licence was done

my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
as i dont see how the licence or issues that app has anything todo
with a gentoo ebuild as all the ebuild does is fetch and install
and its only told todo so upon the user requesting it to be so
hence its the users choice to deal with the licence rather than
the developers desiding for that user

i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
if i wanted that i would run debian

for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
is the functionality of the ebuild concerned

if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
somewhere noting it as such

1: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94477

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1466 bytes --]


25.12.2005, 3:11:53, Bret Towe wrote:

> i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev thinks
> that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding it, not
> forcing their ideals onto the user if i wanted that i would run debian

Erm, we are not forcing our ideal on users, we simple refuse to commit an
ebuild for code which has no valid license.

For those unfamiliar with the whole thing (Bug 52882, Bug 94477 and tons of
dupes): Someone has forked a proprietary code with a sucky license,
relicensed it under fake LGPL for the sole purpose of being able to host the
project on SF, and even explicitely acknowledges that what he's doing is
illegal:

--- COPYING ------
Due to the license <License.htm>, so I can't make it public,
Last November, I decided to register mac-port at SourceForge,
so I had to choose an open source license, so I chosen LGPL
for this mac-port. It is close to the original license,
but doesn't get the permission from the original author, Matt.

This license would be changed when the author asks in the
future.
------------------

What the heck kind of license and behaviour is the above? And why should
Gentoo ship such crap?

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3679 bytes --]

License in question...

http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view

On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
> for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
> and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
> due to the way the licence was done

Original license really sucks... doesn't matter if someone has grabbed 
the code and labeled it lgpl2, it still is under the monkey license.


> my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
> as i dont see how the licence or issues that app has anything todo
> with a gentoo ebuild as all the ebuild does is fetch and install
> and its only told todo so upon the user requesting it to be so
> hence its the users choice to deal with the licence rather than
> the developers desiding for that user

We're not deciding what licenses users should use (despite pushes from 
both extremes looking to enforce their license view on others).

That said, it's not actually the issue at hand.  Issue at hand is 
violating someone else's license (clarified below).

> i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> if i wanted that i would run debian

See above, and drop the rhetoric please.

> 
> for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
> i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
> is the functionality of the ebuild concerned

Politics do suck.

That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.

Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own 
contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's 
license.  That's going to be one hard sell. ;)


> if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
> of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
> somewhere noting it as such

Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be 
doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).

It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled 
it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the 
original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source- 
the new project could be viewed as a new program.

Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all 
fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.

Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to 
improve the source.

This is why the original license is a major issue.  Effectively, 
the codebase cannot be improved/fixed without the original author, due 
to restrictions keeping the code bound to him/her. If he/she goes 
mia, the project is dead developmentally due to the restrictions, 
which makes putting the package into portage an even harder sell.

Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo, 
that's not the issue.

The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however 
horrid the license is).  

Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or 
someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code 
converted to a different license.  Latter still is tricky, since any 
contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off 
on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do 
centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed 
to it beyond original author.
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1624 bytes --]


25.12.2005, 3:51:15, Brian Harring wrote:


> Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo, 
> that's not the issue.

> The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however 
> horrid the license is).  

> Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or
> someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code 
> converted to a different license.  Latter still is tricky, since any 
> contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off 
> on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do 
> centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed 
> to it beyond original author.


Not exactly what I meant. There's actually no (clear) license, the original
one would apply to the original code, not to the patches submitted after
it's been "re-licensed" under LGPL. Since upstream is dead, we can't ship
the original code (leaving the question why we should do it at all aside),
also we can't exactly find all the people who contributed the patches under
LGPL, and there's no way to contribute the code back to upstream as the
original license requires. Such code is a real "bargain" to commit :P

Rewrite from scratch, that's what left here. So much you get if you start
with a bullshit license originally and then go MIA. :/

-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> License in question...
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=35862&action=view
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 06:11:53PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > earily today i updated the ebuilds for mac and xmms-mac,
> > for those that dont know their applications for monkey's audio (.ape files),
> > and got them submited to bug 94477[1] which was closed
> > due to the way the licence was done
>
> Original license really sucks... doesn't matter if someone has grabbed
> the code and labeled it lgpl2, it still is under the monkey license.
>
>
> > my issue is i think the ebuilds should be commited to portage
> > as i dont see how the licence or issues that app has anything todo
> > with a gentoo ebuild as all the ebuild does is fetch and install
> > and its only told todo so upon the user requesting it to be so
> > hence its the users choice to deal with the licence rather than
> > the developers desiding for that user
>
> We're not deciding what licenses users should use (despite pushes from
> both extremes looking to enforce their license view on others).
>
> That said, it's not actually the issue at hand.  Issue at hand is
> violating someone else's license (clarified below).
>
> > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> > if i wanted that i would run debian
>
> See above, and drop the rhetoric please.

im sorry for attempting to get my idea across

> >
> > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
> > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
> > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned
>
> Politics do suck.
>
> That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.
>
> Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own
> contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's
> license.  That's going to be one hard sell. ;)
>

i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs
or gentoo in general

> > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
> > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
> > somewhere noting it as such
>
> Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be
> doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).

how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev
testing it they also perform the same action as the user would?

> It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled
> it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the
> original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source-
> the new project could be viewed as a new program.
>
> Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all
> fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.
>
> Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to
> improve the source.

orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is

> This is why the original license is a major issue.  Effectively,
> the codebase cannot be improved/fixed without the original author, due
> to restrictions keeping the code bound to him/her. If he/she goes
> mia, the project is dead developmentally due to the restrictions,
> which makes putting the package into portage an even harder sell.
>
> Jakub responded in this thread about shipping a crap license... imo,
> that's not the issue.
>
> The issue is that we would be knowingly violating a license (however
> horrid the license is).
>
> Two routes out of this- clean room reimplementation of the codec, or
> someone manages to track down the original author and gets the code
> converted to a different license.  Latter still is tricky, since any
> contributions to the project, you would need all authors to sign off
> on the new license- this is assuming the project doesn't do
> centralized copyright, and assuming people have actually contributed
> to it beyond original author.
> ~harring

i think that is beyond the scope of this list :)

and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find
people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen
so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3619 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> > > if i wanted that i would run debian
> >
> > See above, and drop the rhetoric please.
> 
> im sorry for attempting to get my idea across

Nothing wrong with discussion- you're pushing a contraversial idea.  
Don't need rhetoric to get what you want, you need *facts* and *good* 
arguements as to why your way is right.

Rhetoric doesn't fall under that, since someone will see through it 
and the bs flaming will start up shortly after- thus it should be 
avoided (and yes, I'm sure I'm probably being a hypocrit here).


> > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
> > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
> > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned
> >
> > Politics do suck.
> >
> > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.
> >
> > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own
> > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's
> > license.  That's going to be one hard sell. ;)
> >
> 
> i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs
> or gentoo in general

Again, you're asking us to take part in license violation- depending 
on the lawyerly interpretation of the license, either we're actually 
in violation of the license, or we're enabling license violation.

Already made it clear in the previous email, you're asking folks who 
have their hard work protected by licenses to knowingly violate a 
license.

Ain't going to hapen.


> > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
> > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
> > > somewhere noting it as such
> >
> > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be
> > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).
> 
> how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev
> testing it they also perform the same action as the user would?

See above.


> > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled
> > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the
> > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source-
> > the new project could be viewed as a new program.
> >
> > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all
> > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.
> >
> > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to
> > improve the source.
> 
> orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is

Original matters, because the new project is using that codebase- 
they're bound by the license of the original regardless of whether or 
not they abide by it (iow, regardless of if they're violating the law 
or not).

> and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find
> people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen
> so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head

*Cough* there is the possibility that folks who do packaging of 
software might have a clue on the licensing issues here, and be seeing 
something you aren't :)

Yes it's arrogant/elitist, but my point is that our differing opinion 
might have valid logic behind it.

Basically... don't talk _at_ people, talk and listen (discourse).
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > > > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev
> > > > thinks that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding
> > > > it, not forcing their ideals onto the user
> > > > if i wanted that i would run debian
> > >
> > > See above, and drop the rhetoric please.
> >
> > im sorry for attempting to get my idea across
>
> Nothing wrong with discussion- you're pushing a contraversial idea.
> Don't need rhetoric to get what you want, you need *facts* and *good*
> arguements as to why your way is right.

only fact i had is i saw a bug being closed with explianation as to
why so i inquired and here we are

> Rhetoric doesn't fall under that, since someone will see through it
> and the bs flaming will start up shortly after- thus it should be
> avoided (and yes, I'm sure I'm probably being a hypocrit here).
>
>
> > > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above
> > > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want
> > > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned
> > >
> > > Politics do suck.
> > >
> > > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse.
> > >
> > > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own
> > > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's
> > > license.  That's going to be one hard sell. ;)
> > >
> >
> > i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs
> > or gentoo in general
>
> Again, you're asking us to take part in license violation- depending
> on the lawyerly interpretation of the license, either we're actually
> in violation of the license, or we're enabling license violation.
>
> Already made it clear in the previous email, you're asking folks who
> have their hard work protected by licenses to knowingly violate a
> license.
>
> Ain't going to hapen.
>
>
> > > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable
> > > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up
> > > > somewhere noting it as such
> > >
> > > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be
> > > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it).
> >
> > how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev
> > testing it they also perform the same action as the user would?
>
> See above.
>
>
> > > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled
> > > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the
> > > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source-
> > > the new project could be viewed as a new program.
> > >
> > > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all
> > > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream.
> > >
> > > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to
> > > improve the source.
> >
> > orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is
>
> Original matters, because the new project is using that codebase-
> they're bound by the license of the original regardless of whether or
> not they abide by it (iow, regardless of if they're violating the law
> or not).
>
> > and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find
> > people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen
> > so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head
>
> *Cough* there is the possibility that folks who do packaging of
> software might have a clue on the licensing issues here, and be seeing
> something you aren't :)
>
> Yes it's arrogant/elitist, but my point is that our differing opinion
> might have valid logic behind it.

im sorry to say i dont go with that unless they point me to that logic
i dont blindly follow with the rest of the sheep

> Basically... don't talk _at_ people, talk and listen (discourse).

i do but it can still end up being just talk at

> ~harring
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 217 bytes --]

This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license 
(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several 
months ago.


Carsten


[1] http://tinyurl.com/9oxgc

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
> (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> months ago.

im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
issue warn the user and leave it at that

>
> Carsten
>
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/9oxgc
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 780 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@gmail.com> wrote:
| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
| > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
| > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
| > discussion¹ about several months ago.
| 
| im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
| licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
| licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that

Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@gmail.com> wrote:
> | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
> | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
> | > discussion¹ about several months ago.
> |
> | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
> | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
> | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that
>
> Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
> LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?

whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random

sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source
which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit
is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and,
assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore
all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there
it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?

> --
> Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
> Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
> Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
>
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Daniel Ostrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1651 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@gmail.com> wrote:
> > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
> > | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
> > | > discussion¹ about several months ago.
> > |
> > | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
> > | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
> > | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that
> >
> > Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
> > LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
> 
> whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random
> 
> sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source
> which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit
> is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and,
> assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore
> all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there
> it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?

Read my last e-mail, it is a question of culpability do to the
facilitation of an illegal act, a crime in and of itself, nothing more,
nothing less. Sure we wouldn't be shipping the actual source, but what
we would be doing is facilitating your use of said source, which is
*illegal*.

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
> > > | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
> > > | > discussion¹ about several months ago.
> > > |
> > > | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
> > > | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
> > > | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that
> > >
> > > Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
> > > LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
> >
> > whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random
> >
> > sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source
> > which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit
> > is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and,
> > assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore
> > all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there
> > it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?
>
> Read my last e-mail, it is a question of culpability do to the
> facilitation of an illegal act, a crime in and of itself, nothing more,
> nothing less. Sure we wouldn't be shipping the actual source, but what
> we would be doing is facilitating your use of said source, which is
> *illegal*.

thanks again for making things alot clearer


> --
> Daniel Ostrow
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
> dostrow@gentoo.org
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDrhVB/qoUyhrWzV0RArDrAJ0Y4g7JrGlHD5xENHARbJ2188qtxgCghz4A
> NO2Z9AaZ72+TYTh+pFQC4S8=
> =L2QO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Luis F. Araujo]

Bret Towe wrote:

>On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <magnade@gmail.com> wrote:
>>| On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>| > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
>>| > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
>>| > discussion¹ about several months ago.
>>|
>>| im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
>>| licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
>>| licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that
>>
>>Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
>>LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
>>    
>>
>
>whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random
>
>sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source
>which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit
>is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and,
>assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore
>all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there
>it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?
>
>  
>
It does matter because Gentoo is a foundation which need to respect that
"absurdity" of licenses and copyright thing.

And i think that you, as a user, need to agree with that policy
(and common sense actually) while using Gentoo.

This is a "free software" community , not a "fuck the law" community.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Curtis Napier]

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
> LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
> 


No, but could you add Win2000? ktnks.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Brian Harring]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1645 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:17:05PM -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
> > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> > months ago.
> 
> im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
> matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
> issue warn the user and leave it at that

The new package uses the source of the original; we knowingly 
package/ship that, we're infringing on the copyright.

Say I commit it, and the original author comes back with an army of 
lawers.

They sue my ass, and whoever they can think of (money is a wonderful 
thing, no?).

That's why it matters.  We get nailed, users too can get nailed.

Re-read my email.  If I didn't make it clear, I'll try and clarify it- 
the new package is *knowingly* violating the license, and we've 
already got enough info sitting in bugs.g.o that it's documented we 
would knowingly be violating the license if we went forward with it.

Hell, if the new package has modified the original source in anyway, 
it's already in violation of the license for not contributing the 
changes upstream.

Either way, it's not going to happen without one of the 2 routes I 
mentioned in my previous email occuring.

Yes, it would be nice having it in the tree, but the original author 
really shot themselves in the foot via the license they choose- we're 
stuck operating within those confines, thus we're boned (as are 
users).

~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Daniel Ostrow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
> > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> > months ago.
> 
> im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
> matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
> issue warn the user and leave it at that

What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally culpable
for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in our tree
violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds then the
original author would have the legal right to take action against us. It
is not just a question of letting the user decide if they want to use an
illegally licensed program, we would be facilitating such an act. That
is something we cannot and will not do.

-- 
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
dostrow@gentoo.org


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Bret Towe]

On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:17 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
> > > (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
> > > months ago.
> >
> > im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
> > matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
> > issue warn the user and leave it at that
>
> What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally culpable
> for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in our tree
> violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds then the
> original author would have the legal right to take action against us. It
> is not just a question of letting the user decide if they want to use an
> illegally licensed program, we would be facilitating such an act. That
> is something we cannot and will not do.

THANK YOU!
now if someone had said that eariler this wouldnt have gone that far
is this documented somewhere so devs later on when dealing
with such an item again can just post a url to it on the bug
and help prevent this from happening again?

> --
> Daniel Ostrow
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
> dostrow@gentoo.org
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDrhKz/qoUyhrWzV0RAqP5AJ9VUOKz0gv/QU3dbOpjb766ZO+zFwCdFKn2
> 0485JEETpHLoyiayCt43elc=
> =UmgO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1082 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:32:03 -0500 Daniel Ostrow <dostrow@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| What you are missing is that Gentoo (the foundation) is legally
| culpable for making sure that none of the packages that we provide in
| our tree violate any form of license. If we shipped these e-builds
| then the original author would have the legal right to take action
| against us. It is not just a question of letting the user decide if
| they want to use an illegally licensed program, we would be
| facilitating such an act. That is something we cannot and will not do.

The Foundation is liable under the DMCA for proving links to software
that can be used to circumvent copyright protection, and it is liable
under regular copyright law for shipping source or binaries of a
package without permission. What law covers shipping a description of
how to build copyright-violating (but not DMCA-covered) software?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]


25.12.2005, 4:17:05, Bret Towe wrote:

> On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
>> (when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion1 about several
>> months ago.

> im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
> matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
> issue warn the user and leave it at that

Yuck. I'm sorry, but arguments like "copyright does not matter, just go ship
it" won't fare too well, leaving further debate pretty much pointless.
Copyright *does* matter, if you want to see an example how a ridiculous
license kills the job, go see qmail ebuilds.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] mac/xmms-mac licence issue

[Dale]

Bret Towe wrote:

>On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <carlo@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a ridiculous license
>>(when you want to see it as one) we had a short discussion¹ about several
>>months ago.
>>    
>>
>
>im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous licence
>matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a licence if thats the
>issue warn the user and leave it at that
>
>  
>
>>Carsten
>>
>>
>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/9oxgc
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
I'm not a dev or anything, not a lawyer either, bit I'll try to explain 
it this way.  You go buy a car at the dealership.  Legal right?  The car 
was stolen and sold to the dealership by the thief.  It doesn't matter 
that the dealership or you didn't know the car was stolen.  The crook is 
guilty of stealing the car, the dealer is guilty of receiving/selling 
stolen mechandise, you are guilty of buying/possesing it.  All this when 
you nor the dealer knew it was stolen to begin with.  It is legally up 
to you to make sure the vehicle is not stolen.  If you don't, you pay 
the price.

So to apply to this situation.  The program, according to the person 
that put it on sourceforge from what I read, knows the license is not 
legal but did it any.  He even pretty much says so.  So now unlike 
above, you know the license is illegal.  Well, the Gentoo people know 
this too.  They don't want to be the dealer above who could at the very 
least end up in court with a lawyer billing them hundreds of dollars a 
hour just to pass on something they know is illegal to begin with.  You 
could be sitting in the next court room defending yourself as well.  
Just like the RIAA, you leave tracks and they know you have it.  You get 
it for possesion like above.

Another way of looking at it is this.  Let's say someone at Gentoo, like 
the people that write portage for example, find their code or program 
being distributed without their permission.  If Gentoo does as you want, 
they couldn't really say much could they?  Since by doing that Gentoo 
would be as bad as the guy that stole their code in portage.  It's sort 
of like stealing something from a thief.  Who is he going to report it 
too?  He stole too.  Of course, I say put them both in jail. 

Write to whoever is in charge of the program and tell them to get the 
license worked out so it is legal.  I'm sure then the Gentoo people will 
jump on board and put it in portage for you.

Basically, what you are asking them to do is wrong.  I'm not speaking 
for them but don't hold your breath hoping they will help you break the 
law OK.

My $.02 worth which is not legal advise either by the way.

Dale
:-)

Sticks foot in mouth so I will shut up.  LOL

-- 
To err is human, I'm most certainly human.

I have four rigs:

1:  Home built; Abit NF7 ver 2.0 w/ AMD 2500+ CPU, 1GB of ram and right now two 80GB hard drives.
2:  Home built; Iwill KK266-R w/ AMD 1GHz CPU, 256MBs of ram and a 4GB drive.
3:  Home built; Gigabyte GA-71XE4 w/ 800MHz CPU, 128MBs of ram and a 2.5GB drive.
4:  Compaq Proliant 6000 Server w/ Quad 200MHz CPUs, 128MBs of ram and a 4.3GB SCSI drive.

All run Gentoo Linux, all run folding. #1 is my desktop, 2, 3, and 4 are set up as servers.  

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list