Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item: World file handling changes in Portage-2.2

2008-08-20 Thread Vaeth
Duncan wrote: I believe that's the way it is now, yes. Thus what we're proposing would simply keep the legacy meaning for world (and system) as they are, while @world (and @system) would refer to the specific sets. Now that it has been suggested, I do believe that's the simplest way to

[gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Jim Ramsay
IANAL, and I'm sure most of us aren't either, but I would appreciate some opinions on Bug and whether the binary patch proposed there conflicts with section 2.5.1 of the license agreement from Adobe:

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Robert Bridge
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Richard Freeman
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

[gentoo-dev] Re: License Interpretation

2008-08-20 Thread Duncan
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:07:08 -0400: Gentoo doesn't distribute software (well, except to the degree that we mirror it). It probably doesn't apply in this particular case, but note that Gentoo DOES distribute software