Re: [gentoo-dev] CAcert certificate distribution license to third parties (i.e. distributors like gentoo)

[Daniel Black <dragonheart@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2105 bytes --]

On Tuesday 15 December 2009 23:19:22 Richard Freeman wrote:
> On 12/15/2009 01:46 AM, Daniel Black wrote:
> > I did email the debian maintainer too. no response yet. They have
> > interactive builds though and I guess we do too now. Will be a royal pain
> > if every CA/software did the same thing.
> 
> The last thing gentoo needs is interactive builds. 
agree.
 
> I'd rather put a disclaimer in the handbook that when you install gentoo
> you bear the consequences of anything you do with it: if you're in a
> jurisdiction where software licenses are binding on those who use
> software then be sure to set ACCEPT_LICENSE accordingly, and all users
> should monitor the outputs of their builds for important notices.
sounds reasonable.

> If legal experts feel that the only thing that will work would be an
> interactive build, then we should:
I'm not sure it is. Its very early days of this license.

after reading this license without (or significantly less of) a headache i'm 
thinking 1.4 2) "to advice the end-user of the NRP-DaL" refers to advising the 
user that the license exists rather the text of it. Gentoo maintainers could 
simple add the NRP-DaL to the LICENSE of the ebuild.  Portage 2.2's requiring 
the user add acceptable licenses to ACCEPT_LICENSE is probably sufficient.

> I'm generally in favor of including CACert by default, but if they're
> going to shoot themselves in the foot over licensing then that is their
> loss.
they aren't trying to they just don't know our issues. I did ask for wider 
consultation and to be wary of clauses incompatible with distributors normal 
operations.

> .. and I really don't see why CACert is pushing this either...

Clearing up a legal loop to allow distribution in a way that communicates the 
NRP-DaL to the end-user. Their own page http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=3 
doesn't mention NRP-DaL either so as you can see, their are just progressing 
with a few little bumps and inconsistencies like everyone else.

https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-12/msg00080.html


Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]