On четвер 13 грудень 2007, Mark Linimon wrote: = Wrong. You do cvs add, cvs com.
That would lose the prior history of the port, AFAIK. = At least in the US, a court of law won't accept "we'll be deleting the = infringing software Pretty Soon." Once notified of the infringement, you = are obliged to take immediate action. FORBIDDEN prevents the port from being built just as immediately. You can then proceed to remove the already built packages from the ftp-site, which was done anyway. It is perfectly clear from the thread(s) -- and most participants don't even deny it -- that the personal feelings towards Tuomo have hastened the port's demise. Despite the ongoing port-freeze... I share some of the feeling, but we add/remove ports to improve the experience of users (including ourselves), not of the authors. = Keeping us legal is an explicit part of the portmgr charter. The surest thing to do so is to remove the entire ports collection -- it is all a major liability: http://technocrat.net/d/2006/6/30/5032 Tuomo's demands aren't unheard of either -- Sun's requirement, that Java binaries be "certified" isn't that different... And, unlike Tuomo, they already have brought a major lawsuit against a license-violator. But we continue to have JDK-ports (we just don't distribute the resulting binaries)... Bill Moran wrote: = > should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead. = Perhaps you're right. However, I'd like to hear the opinion of a lawyer = as to whether this is acceptable or not. The (mathematical) expectactions of the payments to lawyers equal the amount multiplied by the probability of having to pay. You are suggesting a payment of $200-$300 (for consultation) with the probability of 1 against the $10K-20K multiplied by, uhm, something so close to zero, that it may not fit in this message. If anybody ever does file a suit against FreeBSD, it will not be Tuomo. The thread has riched the sad point of tiring the readers regardless of contents long ago, and the port-maintainer has finally chimed in saying, he is going to resurrect the port portmgr-permitting. The portmgr implied permission already, so let's get back to coding. Tuomo Valkonen wrote: = However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the = release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness. So, like Java and others, let's mark this port (upon ressurection) RESTRICTED and NO_CDROM so that binaries aren't distributed and the user always has to build from source -- but with the port's aid. The Xinerama can be among the OPTIONS (default off) thus respecting the requirement, that modifications be only on user's request. -mi _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"