On 03/21/12 11:14, Justin wrote: > On 21.03.2012 15:48, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: >> On 21/03/12 10:34 AM, Richard Yao wrote: >>> On 03/21/12 10:18, Justin wrote: >>>> I will not extract part of the software, e.g. subroutines, for >>>> use in other contexts without permission of the author. >> >>> Portage could be considered to be one of these contexts. >> >> >> If the entire package is installed (ie, it's not broken up into >> separate libraries or sub-packages) this would be fine (ie having the >> package in portage), wouldn't it? >> >> I guess the primary restriction here would be that nothing else would >> be allowed to link against any embedded libraries; ie, the package >> couldn't be a dep. >> > > It simply creates one binary which I am interested in. I don't see any > problem if I use fetch restriction. The only remaining question would be > the actual LICENSE? > > justin > > >
Portage is a dramatic advance over the older model of distributing tarballs that are then extracted by hand and it is something that the author could both have failed to realize possible and also consider to be a different context. This is a possible ambiguity that I could see being exploited in a legal setting, although I admit that it is incredibly unlikely that anyone would to bother. One would have to be incredibly dense to consider portage to be a separate context, although I could imagine lawyers and judges considering it to be such.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
