On Tue 05 Aug 2003 04:08, Buchan Milne posted as excerpted below: Duncan wrote.. > > With software libre that shouldn't be a problem. > > This has nothing to do with the freedom or otherwise of the software, it > has to do with software patents in many cases, and copyright (not > license) violation in others.
What I'm saying is that whatever issues there may be should then not involve Mdk.. If someone creates an SRPM with --with options so it can be "PLF-ified", and submits it to both Mdk contrib, and PLF, the latter with the appropriate --with options enabled for the binary package, they do so as an independent agent. Mdk is just using their SRPM without the appropriate options enabled for the binary that make it questionably legal. What said independent agent chooses to submit elsewhere, or that said submitted software source rpm has the ability to compile a binary of questionable legality shouldn't be a problem, so long as Mdk is just using a contributed srpm, and ensures that the binary it uses doesn't contain the questioned code. The problem is a bit dicier with paid employees doing so, but depending on how their contract is worded, it may be the same thing, effectively, only that they get paid to submit the Mdk ones, but still whatever else goes on is theirs to do as an independent agent/consultant. OTOH, if the company claims intellectual property rights to anything developed by said employee.. THEN there's a problem, but one would think a decent open source company would realize the problems with such an approach and avoid it. OTOH, the "never heard of it", or heard of it, but didn't know the reference, for those frequenting this list, since it's mentioned here on occasion and the never heard of it probably isn't absolutely credible, for core employees IS probably the best approach.. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
