On Jun 2, 2015, at 4:40 AM, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you verify that with every bit of code that is available through MacPorts? We make reasonable attempts to make sure that the legal business is kosher. > I'm sorry, but you're making a way too big fuss out of this. The modified > code is made available freely and publicly for others to use, and IMHO I can > safely assume that this has been done with the knowledge and by extension > silent consent of his employer (Vlad not being the only employee contributing > to the repo from what I remember) AND the zlib whatever they call themselves. Bad assumption. > I'm not considering to ship a binary version of the code nor am I suggesting > one should or could. This doesn't really have to do with binaries. Source is copyrighted also. > I'm not shipping the code verbatim. It might be possible to write the > Portfile such that it grabs the equivalent patch directly from github but > there isn't the slightest hint that one cannot redistribute the modifications > (I have Vlad's consent in fact). You are wrong. Copyright and restrictive redistribution terms are _assumed_ until explicitly waived by the copyright holder, who is probably CloudFlare Inc. and not your friend Vlad. > Last of all, I'm not even proposing my variant for inclusion in MacPorts. > It's up for grabs, I've informed others on here about it and the most likely > outcome of the licensing question. If anyone wants to investigate this > further in light of possible inclusion of the variant, that's fine - if not, > too bad for the other MacPorts users. You're correct here at least: This is a moot point because we're not going to ship this. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
