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

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>]

[-- 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 --]