Ion3 removal

Mikhail Teterin mi+kde at
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 
done anyway.

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 mailing list