From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NKuWE-000243-Dx for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:06:22 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 096A9E08EE for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:06:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail14.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.99]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2924DE0AA1 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from passivegrunt.localnet (unverified [121.45.218.26]) by mail.internode.on.net (SurgeMail 3.8f2) with ESMTP id 10323144-1927428 for ; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:57:16 +1030 (CDT) From: Daniel Black Organization: Gentoo To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] CAcert certificate distribution license to third parties (i.e. distributors like gentoo) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:26:29 +1100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.31-gentoo-r4; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <200912132244.09435.dragonheart@gentoo.org> <200912151746.09755.dragonheart@gentoo.org> <4B277ECA.3000608@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4B277ECA.3000608@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1356073.ygpxdWefIg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200912162326.30038.dragonheart@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 86ffe38b-9e2d-4b8b-b61e-40811ddccc70 X-Archives-Hash: c8500d2c18cccf060c10ec92332c2c50 --nextPart1356073.ygpxdWefIg Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 pa= in > > if every CA/software did the same thing. >=20 > The last thing gentoo needs is interactive builds.=20 agree. =20 > 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=20 thinking 1.4 2) "to advice the end-user of the NRP-DaL" refers to advising = the=20 user that the license exists rather the text of it. Gentoo maintainers coul= d=20 simple add the NRP-DaL to the LICENSE of the ebuild. Portage 2.2's requiri= ng=20 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= =20 consultation and to be wary of clauses incompatible with distributors norma= l=20 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 t= he=20 NRP-DaL to the end-user. Their own page http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id= =3D3=20 doesn't mention NRP-DaL either so as you can see, their are just progressin= g=20 with a few little bumps and inconsistencies like everyone else. https://lists.cacert.org/wws/arc/cacert-board/2009-12/msg00080.html Daniel --nextPart1356073.ygpxdWefIg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkso0fYACgkQhhpKunZncJeXlgCdF3CQa99479BgAY4dimpAp3j1 yz4Anjyqu8DXGxb7HDsRSpMhLoFJsabL =IrGH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1356073.ygpxdWefIg--