* Mark Linimon (lini...@lonesome.com) wrote: > The author orginally contacted us with a legal threat because we were > not in compliance with the 28-day clause. A long, acrimonious disucssion > ensued. In that discussion, the author was asked "if we agree to meet > that condition going forward, would you guarantee that this would remove > any further legal threat?" and he said yes ... > > for now. > > But that he reserved the right to change his mind later. > > *depending* on what we did or did not do in the future -- not just in > adhering to the *existing clauses* like the "significant" clause or > "renamed" clause -- both of which he mentioned would be part of any > lawsuit. > > Legally indefensible? Of course. Would that prevent a lawsuit being > filed? No. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
Well, if you insist I of course won't commit it. But the whole thing disappoints me greately, cause I was pretty sure at least FreeBSD developers won't be affected by a mere FUD. Do you honestly think the probability of Tuomo suing us is higher of, say, me suing, well, us? And that anything will change by us not providing a port we have absolutely totally utterly 100% right to provide? That is just silly. The port from now on is available here (removed from people.freebsd.org): http://mirror.amdmi3.ru/ports/ion3-20090110.port.tar -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amd...@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"