Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Donnie Berkholz wrote: Have you heard of the term contributory infringement? It means you're helping someone else break copyright law. Wouldn't somebody need to distribute the software to be in violation of copyright law? If I in legal and fully-licensed manner install a program on my PC, and then I modify that program but don't distribute it, have I violated copyright law? If the end-user doesn't violate copyright, then Gentoo couldn't be guilty of contributory infringement. If I purchase a piece of artwork and then draw over it I haven't violated copyright. If I make 10 copies of the resulting modified art and distribute them then I may have. If I sell a magic marker and print on the box you can draw all over your expensive artwork on it I'm not contributing to copyright infringement. If I write on the box you can draw all over your expensive artwork and sell it on ebay then I may be contributing to copyright infringement. At least, that is how I see it... :)
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
On 21:07 Wed 20 Aug , Richard Freeman wrote: Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are not derivative works of any of Adobe's software. A user who executes an ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. A user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of license agreements that they may or may not be parties to. Have you heard of the term contributory infringement? It means you're helping someone else break copyright law. The recent JMRI decision showed that at least free-software licenses are copyright licenses rather than contracts, and there's reasonable support that other types of licenses are the same. That means if we're enabling encouraging our users to infringe copyrights or patents by providing ebuilds that do so, we may be guilty of the same. IANAL and all that. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpFC5Pj8xsVs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Good news everyone! This has become a non-issue, at least in the next version of flash player[1]. Thanks again for all your input! [1] http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/2008/08/curl_tradeoffs.html -- Jim Ramsay Gentoo Developer (rox/fluxbox/gkrellm) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to decompile under applicable law, it is essential to do so in order to achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information available. I *think* I would be okay using this binary patch since: 1) This is specifically to make it operable with libcurl.so.4 2) I have (and others have) asked Adobe to recompile it with support for libcurl.so.4 instead of libcurl.so.3, but they have not done so (or responded to any of these requests, as far as I am aware). Actually (and I'm no lawyer either), I think a binary patch isn't allowed: You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. The rest of the paragraph is about obtaining (or trying to obtain) its source code or application behavior, i.e. learn the program, not modify it. Wkr, Sven Vermeulen
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:10:18 -0400 Jim Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IANAL, but the following line is critical: it is essential to do so in order to achieve operability of the Software with another software program, and you have first requested Adobe to provide the information necessary to achieve such operability and Adobe has not made such information available. Given the situation as you outline it, I think the sub-section above expressly permits the binary patch. The request has been made, Adobe have not co-operated, that clause has been invoked... At least, that's how I would read it. Rob. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation
Jim Ramsay wrote: 2.5.1 You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software... Anyone care to weigh in, lawyer or not? Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I don't see an issue here. I don't see that Gentoo or its developers are in any way a party to this agreement. This is an agreement between Adobe and those who distribute its software. Some argue that EULAs also apply to those who use software (which is debatable), but Gentoo does not use this software either (to my knowledge). Gentoo distributes ebuilds - which are not the property of Adobe and are not derivative works of any of Adobe's software. A user who executes an ebuild might obtain a copy of an Adobe product that Adobe distributes. A user who executes an ebuild might create a derivative work of an Adobe product, and users who use proprietary software are advised to consult with lawyers as appropriate if they are concerned about the terms of license agreements that they may or may not be parties to. To me this is kind of like RiffTrax or similar along-side products that allow users to improve the experience of using a copyrighted work, but which are not themselves derivatives of copyrighted works. If a user using one of these products happens to create a derivative work that is a matter between them and the copyright owner. If such work is occurring without further distribution in an end-user context it is likely to be considered fair use. Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we mirror it). Gentoo makes it easier for users to use software that others distribute. As a result, Gentoo stays fairly clear of copyright law, and we do make a good-faith effort to not mirror content which we are not licensed to redistribute. That is my personal take on things like this, but again, I'm not a lawyer and others might not agree (makes no difference to me one way or another if you don't). :)
