mi+kde at aldan.algebra.com
Thu Dec 13 07:30:50 PST 2007
On четвер 13 грудень 2007, Mark Linimon wrote:
= Wrong. You do cvs add, cvs com.
That would lose the prior history of the port, AFAIK.
= At least in the US, a court of law won't accept "we'll be deleting the
= infringing software Pretty Soon." Once notified of the infringement, you
= are obliged to take immediate action.
FORBIDDEN prevents the port from being built just as immediately. You can then
proceed to remove the already built packages from the ftp-site, which was
It is perfectly clear from the thread(s) -- and most participants don't even
deny it -- that the personal feelings towards Tuomo have hastened the port's
demise. Despite the ongoing port-freeze...
I share some of the feeling, but we add/remove ports to improve the experience
of users (including ourselves), not of the authors.
= Keeping us legal is an explicit part of the portmgr charter.
The surest thing to do so is to remove the entire ports collection -- it is
all a major liability:
Tuomo's demands aren't unheard of either -- Sun's requirement, that Java
binaries be "certified" isn't that different... And, unlike Tuomo, they
already have brought a major lawsuit against a license-violator. But we
continue to have JDK-ports (we just don't distribute the resulting
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.
The (mathematical) expectactions of the payments to lawyers equal the amount
multiplied by the probability of having to pay. You are suggesting a payment
of $200-$300 (for consultation) with the probability of 1 against the
$10K-20K multiplied by, uhm, something so close to zero, that it may not fit
in this message. If anybody ever does file a suit against FreeBSD, it will
not be Tuomo.
The thread has riched the sad point of tiring the readers regardless of
contents long ago, and the port-maintainer has finally chimed in saying, he
is going to resurrect the port portmgr-permitting. The portmgr implied
permission already, so let's get back to coding.
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
= However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the
= release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness.
So, like Java and others, let's mark this port (upon ressurection) RESTRICTED
and NO_CDROM so that binaries aren't distributed and the user always has to
build from source -- but with the port's aid. The Xinerama can be among the
OPTIONS (default off) thus respecting the requirement, that modifications be
only on user's request.
More information about the freebsd-ports