Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 19:15:19 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com>, Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/opennap - Imported sources Message-ID: <200007292315.TAA60791@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:43:04 PDT." <200007291943.MAA57302@netplex.com.au> References: <200007291943.MAA57302@netplex.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
My point was, once you start trying to draw the line between what software is made "available" and what shouldn't be, you enter a troublesome space. I'm no lawyer (and I'm really happy about that based on the lengthy experiences dealing with them), but if you start making judgements on what can be included and what can't be, then I think you open the door more than making no judgements at all. Should FreeBSD provide the "cracking tools" in ports/security? What if they're used to attack a site? This is the same sort of problem and by trying to decide yourself, rather than leaving it do the end user of the software, you're inviting people to dispute the completeness of your choices. Oh, and if anyone's keeping track, another court has temporarily stayed the injunction against Napster until they can appeal the restraining order. Not that any of that matter has a broad enough precedent to be necessarily applicable to other parties in the first place. louie To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007292315.TAA60791>