25.12.2005, 3:11:53, Bret Towe wrote: > i can understand putting proper warning in the ebuild if the dev thinks > that its worth the user really noting the issues surrounding it, not > forcing their ideals onto the user if i wanted that i would run debian
Erm, we are not forcing our ideal on users, we simple refuse to commit an ebuild for code which has no valid license. For those unfamiliar with the whole thing (Bug 52882, Bug 94477 and tons of dupes): Someone has forked a proprietary code with a sucky license, relicensed it under fake LGPL for the sole purpose of being able to host the project on SF, and even explicitely acknowledges that what he's doing is illegal: --- COPYING ------ Due to the license <License.htm>, so I can't make it public, Last November, I decided to register mac-port at SourceForge, so I had to choose an open source license, so I chosen LGPL for this mac-port. It is close to the original license, but doesn't get the permission from the original author, Matt. This license would be changed when the author asks in the future. ------------------ What the heck kind of license and behaviour is the above? And why should Gentoo ship such crap? -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;)
pgpLILkpRpuBF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
