From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GJN1Y-0003zH-1Z for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 04:22:28 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k824L9p5017439; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 04:21:09 GMT Received: from egr.msu.edu (jeeves.egr.msu.edu [35.9.37.127]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k824Hj1X017203 for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 04:17:46 GMT Received: from [35.11.210.66] (warnera6.user.msu.edu [35.11.210.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by egr.msu.edu (8.13.7/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k8240v5P023953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:00:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44F90227.3080408@gentoo.org> Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:01:43 -0400 From: Alec Warner Organization: Gentoo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060612) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] cdrtools license issues References: <200609011444.59711.carlo@gentoo.org> <44F8DACF.7090806@gentoo.org> <20060902023257.GA22617@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20060902023257.GA22617@kroah.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 OpenPGP: id=51C1BC98 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9d437ff5-ffa2-4ab6-9061-9b490d508bba X-Archives-Hash: 9fa7c7008a41785a00098115415c3374 Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 06:13:51PM -0700, Peter Gordon wrote: >> Carsten Lohrke wrote: >>> Imho we have to remove the partly and incompatible relicensed cdrtools-2.01.01 >>> alpha ebuilds from the tree. >> I completely agree. In fact, Fedora Development also had to revert this change >> due to the same licensing issues a couple of weeks ago. (See the thread spawned >> from the 20060817 rawhide report [1].) > > No, they had to do this because they are distributing a built binary, > same as Debian. We don't do that, so there is no issue for us[1]. See > my other response in this thread for details. > > thanks, > > greg k-h > > [1] As long as we take the binary off the live cd and the install image. and the tinderbox[1.5] [1.5] http://tinderbox.x86.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/x86/app-cdr/ -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list