Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 08:49:35 +1000 From: Da Rock <freebsd-ports@herveybayaustralia.com.au> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mail/imaptools: port removal at Monday April 9th Message-ID: <4F83677F.2060809@herveybayaustralia.com.au> In-Reply-To: <4F83631C.3080807@FreeBSD.org> References: <201204091749.q39HnYsF092884@fire.js.berklix.net> <4F8360EB.6090605@herveybayaustralia.com.au> <4F83631C.3080807@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 04/10/12 08:30, Doug Barton wrote: > On 04/09/2012 15:21, Da Rock wrote: >> To stick my nose where it probably doesn't belong: indeed. This is one >> area where linux annoys the most for that very reason. >> >> Let the user decide and bear the responsibility. > If you want to put up a server with all the encumbered software and let > people download it, go right ahead. Meanwhile, the project has chosen > (wisely) not to run the risk of legal entanglements. > > ... not to mention the common courtesy of following the wishes of those > who created the software in the first place. Part of the beauty of FreeBSD is ports, so that the user downloads from the source (or somewhere appropriate) and _not_ the project's servers. The only possible area for the 'entanglement' is the fact the framework lists where to download from. As for the wishes of the author... plain english is plain english- when you relinquish a right you can't un-relinquish it (if that is actually a word). Even the legal system has trouble (or simply cannot do it) with putting the cat back in the bag, unbolting the horse, etc, when there is a legal right to do so; to say nothing about this case.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F83677F.2060809>