On Sat, 2005-12-24 at 19:35 -0800, Bret Towe wrote: > On 12/24/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 19:17:05 -0800 Bret Towe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | On 12/24/05, Carsten Lohrke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | > This isn't politics, but copyright infringement on top of a > > | > ridiculous license (when you want to see it as one) we had a short > > | > discussion¹ about several months ago. > > | > > | im sorry i fail to see how copyright infringement or a ridiculous > > | licence matters when commiting a ebuild to portage just pick a > > | licence if thats the issue warn the user and leave it at that > > > > Would you like us to add the Windows XP source code to the tree with > > LICENSE="gpl-2" as well? > > whats the point i cant get the same crap from /dev/random > > sarcasm aside considering its just an ebuild that points to the source > which could be not hosted on gentoo mirrors and the LICENCE bit > is to notify the user ahead of time what the licence is and, > assuming the functionality was there, allow said user to ignore > all applications that use that licence type but since that isnt there > it could be anything and it doesnt really matter now does it?
Read my last e-mail, it is a question of culpability do to the
facilitation of an illegal act, a crime in and of itself, nothing more,
nothing less. Sure we wouldn't be shipping the actual source, but what
we would be doing is facilitating your use of said source, which is
*illegal*.
--
Daniel Ostrow
Gentoo Foundation Board of Trustees
Gentoo/{PPC,PPC64,DevRel}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
