-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Daniel Macks wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2005 at 04:48:04PM -0800, Trevor Harmon wrote: > >>On Mar 27, 2005, at 6:22 AM, David H. wrote: >> >>>Yes, ignoring this bullshit licensing issue all together. Four >>>highly paid, very well known and rather well respected lawyers have >>>told me, seperately, that we should exactly do that. >> >>I assume you're joking about the lawyer bit,
no, I am not. That are exactly the words that they told me. The likelyhood that we will end up in court because we "violate" the GPL is about 0. Not to mention that we are not the "active party" in this case. The long version on this topic is about 2 hours and a dinner worth. >>but if I understand your >>point correctly, I disagree. We shouldn't take licensing issues >>lightly. It would be hypocritical to ignore licensing for .info files >>while at the same time expecting everyone to respect the license for >>Fink itself. There are enough GPL violations going on already >>(http://gpl-violations.org/) without setting bad examples. > > > /me nods > > In this case the GPL does not good. It is a pain in our ass requiring us to take measures which influence the way we setup our infrastructure and the like. That is nowhere near being fesable. >>Furthermore, although I do not have four highly paid lawyers at my >>disposal, I believe the law says that only the copyright holder -- that >>is, the author of the .info file -- can choose what license his work is >>distributed under. The Fink community cannot choose for him. > > > This is in agreement with other US copyright-law "executive summaries" > I've read. > Yes, but not with European. > In practice here, .info submissions go via SourceForge, which is > slathered with notices that it is for "open source" software > development only, and Fink is distributed under GPL. Especially by > that latter point, it appears that anyone contributing a file to be > part of fink would be placing that file under GPL as well. > Sorry, but that is downright wrong. As long as I do nto sign my right of sole use and enjoyment over to Fink Developer Network, the copyright as well as the "licensing" remains in my hands. Of course Fink may choose to reject my patch when its licensing does not fit into a scheme we choose, but as long as that not happens, that patch is mine to deal with and it is licensed as I find fit. That is why all my patches would be licensed as BSD for example. - -d > dan > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSAGYPMoaMn4kKR4RAheRAJ43To7CSTVsBS++hFxFQOz6PX+XTACgnL3m oFUP0irYxexS6ensghK+tqY= =4iG+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
