David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Samstag, Februar 8, 2003, at 04:18 Uhr, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > > > > There are two major problems with this: > > 1) Licensing violations. > > > This seems to be a rather iffy case of license violation. I will have > to check back with the lawyers on Monday. There are several approaches > to fixing this. It now dependson you Max, drm and RR how this should be > handled. Fell free to "abuse" our legal department. > >
My understanding from one of the forums in which this has been discussed is that Virex comes with a ReadMe file which discusses the licenses. That is perfectly adequate for most open source licenses, and in any event, it's not our business to enforce the licenses of the software packages we happen to distribute. (If they seem to be violating the license, the violation can be reported to the author of the package.) > > > In addition, they used Fink packaged software without telling the Fink > > Developers about it or placing a notice in the software! > > > Which is annoying and should be told to them. > Actually, I have no problem with them using the software without acknowledging it. What *is* a problem is that they installed things directly into /sw, which interferes with the operation of Fink. We need a web page somewhere on the Fink site which explains why this is a problem, and gives some suggestions (like in Ben Hines' posts on the McAfee Virex forum) about what a software developer should do if she or he wants to re-use Fink stuff (in order to avoid interfering with Fink). -- Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
