karel at lovetemple.net
Fri Dec 14 17:06:03 PST 2007
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.
More information about the freebsd-ports