On 12/24/05, Daniel Ostrow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote:
> > On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a
> > > | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short
> > > | > discussion¹ about several months ago.
> > > |
> > > | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous
> > > | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a
> > > | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that
> > >
> > > Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with
> > > LICENSE="gpl-2" as well?
> >
> > whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random
> >
> > sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source
> > which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit
> > is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and,
> > assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore
> > all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there
> > it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?
>
> Read my last e-mail, it is a question of culpability do to the
> facilitation of an illegal act, a crime in and of itself, nothing more,
> nothing less. Sure we wouldn't be shipping the actual source, but what
> we would be doing is facilitating your use of said source, which is
> *illegal*.
thanks again for making things alot clearer
> --
> Daniel Ostrow
> Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
> Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBDrhVB/qoUyhrWzV0RArDrAJ0Y4g7JrGlHD5xENHARbJ2188qtxgCghz4A
> NO2Z9AaZ72+TYTh+pFQC4S8=
> =L2QO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
