W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman napisał: > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote: > > > > Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package > > that has a known upstream and that is also carried by other distros, > > and downloading a license-less package from a random location on the > > internet? > > Most upstreams do not do much checking about the ownership of their sources. > > Gentoo certainly doesn't - we don't even require developers to submit a DCO. > > Other projects like the Linux kernel require signing a DCO for each > commit, but do not do any checking beyond this. I have no doubt that > they would remove offending sources if they were contacted, but they > do not actively go out and confirm authorship. > > > > > > > The package in question doesn't come with any license though, which > > > > means that only the copyright holder has the right to distribute > > > > it. So I believe that some extra care is justified, especially when > > > > the upstream location of the distfile has changed. > > > Why? We don't redistribute anything that is copyrighted. > > > > Users download the file, and I think that we are responsible to have > > only such SRC_URIs in our ebuilds from where they can obtain the > > package without being exposed to potential legal issues. > > I'm not aware of any court rulings that have found downloading > something like this to be illegal. > > > > > > Perhaps if we want to enforce a policy like this we should take the > > > time to actually write the policy down. As far as I can tell Gentoo > > > has no such policy currently. > > > > The old Games Ebuild Howto [1] has this: > > > > > LICENSE > > > > > > The license is an important point in your ebuild. It is also a > > > common place for making mistakes. Try to check the license on any > > > ebuild that you submit. Often times, the license will be in a > > > COPYING file, distributed in the package's tarball. If the license > > > is not readily apparent, try contacting the authors of the package > > > for clarification. [...] > > > > I propose to add the paragraph above to the devmanual's licenses > > section. > > > > We already know there isn't a license for redistribution. This > doesn't speak about requiring us to ensure that those distributing our > source files have the rights to do so. It merely says to check the > license. We understand the license already. I don't see how this > paragraph pertains to this situation.
AFAIK you're a developer. So if you want to keep this package, then please do the needful and take care of it yourself instead of complaining and demanding others to do the work you want done. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
