At 15:37 Uhr -0500 16.01.2002, Matt Wallace wrote: > > We don't want to be sued. If a packages doesn't have a license field, >> it won't get into the bindist. If it is under a restrictive license >> which forbids binary redistribution, it won't get into the bindist. >> If a package possibly infringes patents (like libgif does with the >> unisys patent), it won't get into the binary distro. If a package >> fails in any other way to comply the policy... you guess. > >This seems a little extreme. I just checked and there are 570 packages in >the source distro and only 83 in the bin distro. Are we saying that all >of these have unacceptable licenses?
No. First off, there are just 290 packages in stable - the count 570 includes unstable, which currently is not available as binary. Secondly, there was a major mistake on my part just recently, which caused the bindist to be deleted. The main reason the binary packages are not yet fully online again is that I was waiting for 0.3.2a, since it's kind pointless to upload everything when you know you have to do that shortly afterwards again. > Autoconf isn't even in the binary dist and if the GPL isn't >acceptable, I don't know what is. I'm hoping that all of these >packages have policy problems, since that is the other >reason you site for possible omission, but even if this is the case, have >the maintainers been notified? See above for the actual reasons. And yes, of course the package maintainers are notified if the packages have problems, do you think I am a stupid? > I think it should be a very important goal >for fink to get the entire source distribution into the binary >distribution. I think this will and can never happen, for obvious legal reasons. the percantage will go up, but never can reach 100%. > I definitely agree that having the _option_ to compile >automatically from source is nice, but binary should definitely be the >default. Actually, fink is primarily about the source compilation, binary dist follow (very closely) on the second spot. > >Also I think the, "we don't want to get sued" line is weak. If somebody >has a problem with their software being distributed they mail the list and >it's taken off the distribution. In many cases in the past, this didn't happen. Often enough, the *whole* website were taken offline, and it also is known to happen that they don't ask first, but rather send a cease & desist (with a spicy bill attached) first. We are taking a defensive stance here with good reasons. After all it is not *you* who might get problems, it's me. > But more to the point, if someone is >distributing the source to their software, what complaint would they make >if you compiled it and distributed it. Please, before you continue writing stuff, *read* the policy, will you? I don't like particulary to have to lecture about things that were written down previously, and to which I pointed you before. > My main evidence for this is that >every package in fink is present in Debian, and no one has sued them, and >they are a hell of a lot more high profile that Fink is. You may think about this as you prefer of course. However, I'd normally think one would first carefully read everything about a project, then listen for some time to the development discussion, ask some questions etc. before jumping in with big and wild guess and conclusions at what is (in your view) the case and what we, the fink team should do. I am open to input and suggestions, but the form in which you present it makes me very uncomfortable. Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
