Ion3 removal

[Karel Miklav]

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> = > should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead.
> 
> = Perhaps you're right. However, I'd like to hear the opinion of a lawyer
> = as to whether this is acceptable or not.

What happened is bad for porters and other users. It would be nice if 
there is at least an official stance or consensus regarding this issue. 
A port is a work separate from the software being ported, mostly not 
done by the authors of the software themselves, so do we want to allow 
unrelated software authors mess our system at all? We are thankful but 
there should also be some protection for our work.

A port is also an unpaid advertisement with a hook. If software authors 
see it as such is not a legal matter, it is a matter of conduct. Cases 
like this illustrate that maybe it shouldn't be. I propose we at least 
clear the matters with authors of software with funny licenses before 
the port is approved.

I'd also like to add that relying on a lawyer's opinion may not be such 
a good idea, because lawyers have to prove themselves too and that could 
be a lottery. We better focus on community, build consensus and try to 
outsmart casual pranksters with trivial legal tactics.