-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Benjamin Reed wrote: > David H. wrote: > >> 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. > > > As the "PR guy" I'm amazed that that is the only concern you have. :P
You know my stance on licensing very well, especially when it comes to the GPL. > > I think bucking the GPL with that kind of attitude is a bad idea. If it > were "the 'system library' thing is a bit murky, I think it could still > be considered such, even though we're installing an updated version in > an alternate location" that's one thing, but if it's "f**k it, let them > try to sue us" that's another thing altogether. > If I had said that, yes indeed. What I meant to express is that we should not waste our time adressing this issue when there are more important things to get done. Let's take the g++ ABI changes for one thing. And yes, I also think that we should not adopt a policy or attitude where we try to go out of our way just because there "might" be legal implications. When it comes down to hard facts, then I am more than willing to change something, do something about a given situation. So please apologise for my lack of emotional detachment when I said what I did. > Is it really that hard to set things that want openssl097 to Restrictive > until we can get them either building against the system libcrypto or > updated to use GNUTLS? (Or confirmed to have a compatible license?) > >> Yes, but not with European. > > > And where is Fink incorporated again? > That does not matter when it comes to copy right. Not at all. >> 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. > > > I agree here. I can't imagine there's such thing as "implied" copyright > assignment just by uploading. There is not. Just as the copyright is always bound to the countries copyright where the "work has been finished, or created". > Copyright is always the creator's unless > specifically notified. I doubt it will be much of a big deal to contact > all maintainers and ask them for consent to consider their .info files > to be released under the GPL, and to put a notice up that all future > submissions will be the same. > Actually I would very much enjoy it if we had a choice here between BSD ad GPL. - -d -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (Darwin) iD8DBQFCSB4FPMoaMn4kKR4RAsfxAKCKhKC0cVwiCjN7GV1xckPPk2ATZQCdEyqR Lj7s+ahgp3+aNK8Jpax4098= =su8v -----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
