On 12/24/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:22:50PM -0800, 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 > > > > > > See above, and drop the rhetoric please. > > > > im sorry for attempting to get my idea across > > Nothing wrong with discussion- you're pushing a contraversial idea. > Don't need rhetoric to get what you want, you need *facts* and *good* > arguements as to why your way is right.
only fact i had is i saw a bug being closed with explianation as to why so i inquired and here we are > Rhetoric doesn't fall under that, since someone will see through it > and the bs flaming will start up shortly after- thus it should be > avoided (and yes, I'm sure I'm probably being a hypocrit here). > > > > > > for those that havent figured it out yet from reading the above > > > > i dont care the politics of the issue with the licence all i want > > > > is the functionality of the ebuild concerned > > > > > > Politics do suck. > > > > > > That said, lawyers crawling up your ass sucks worse. > > > > > > Bluntly, you're asking a collection of devs, who have their own > > > contributions protected by licenses, to ignore a source base's > > > license. That's going to be one hard sell. ;) > > > > > > > i thought i was asking how commiting this can even affect the devs > > or gentoo in general > > Again, you're asking us to take part in license violation- depending > on the lawyerly interpretation of the license, either we're actually > in violation of the license, or we're enabling license violation. > > Already made it clear in the previous email, you're asking folks who > have their hard work protected by licenses to knowingly violate a > license. > > Ain't going to hapen. > > > > > > if it is the case that the devs believe the user is totally incapable > > > > of making choices for themselfs then i suggest putting up > > > > somewhere noting it as such > > > > > > Again, ixnay rhetoric; if we violate the license (which we would be > > > doing), we're responsible (along with user who uses it). > > > > how does that work? an ebuild is a script or do you mean by the dev > > testing it they also perform the same action as the user would? > > See above. > > > > > It doesn't matter if someone else has picked up the source and labeled > > > it as lgpl, unless the new project has *express* permission from the > > > original author, they're not even allowed to screw with the source- > > > the new project could be viewed as a new program. > > > > > > Barring the new program angle, there still is the requirement all > > > fixes/changes be contributed back to the original upstream. > > > > > > Original upsream being dead means it's effectively impossible to > > > improve the source. > > > > orignal doesnt matter as long as someone is > > Original matters, because the new project is using that codebase- > they're bound by the license of the original regardless of whether or > not they abide by it (iow, regardless of if they're violating the law > or not). > > > and again i am sorry if i seem to repeat myself a bit but i find > > people i talk to ether dont get what im talking about or dont listen > > so i end up going in circles trying to beat what im saying into their head > > *Cough* there is the possibility that folks who do packaging of > software might have a clue on the licensing issues here, and be seeing > something you aren't :) > > Yes it's arrogant/elitist, but my point is that our differing opinion > might have valid logic behind it. im sorry to say i dont go with that unless they point me to that logic i dont blindly follow with the rest of the sheep > Basically... don't talk _at_ people, talk and listen (discourse). i do but it can still end up being just talk at > ~harring > > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
