Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2000 12:05:46 +0900 (JST) From: SADA Kenji <sada@bsdclub.org> To: trevor@jpj.net Cc: girgen@partitur.se, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@NUXI.com, lioux@uol.com.br, asami@FreeBSD.ORG, sada@bsdclub.org Subject: Re: Kill Netscape us ports and version 4.08. (was Re: Netscapebrowsers us versions avail. abroad) Message-ID: <200007250305.MAA06332@home.bsdclub.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 24 Jul 2000 19:33:11 -0400 (EDT)". <Pine.BSI.4.21.0007241809470.4053-100000@blues.jpj.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <Pine.BSI.4.21.0007241809470.4053-100000@blues.jpj.net>
trevor@jpj.net writes:
>> > As my afterthought, duplication of same (large!) netscape packages
>> > in different (us and plain) name would not be good for ftp mirror sites
>> > and cdrom disributions.
>>
>> I didn't see anything saying we're allowed to redistribute the Netscape
>> browsers. Sections 3(iii) and 10 in the license say we can't. I left a
>> RESTRICTED line to prevent package-building and archiving.
There is a fact that FreeBSD CD-ROM and ftp mirror sites are already
redistributing netscape binaries. As long as I remember,
this permission is obtained from Netscape inc.
by HOSOKAWA Tatsumi <hosokawa@FreeBSD.org> but now I couldn't give you
any evidence with this.
Please wait, I'm trying to clearify those circumstances.
>> > So I propose to kill bsdi/linux-netscape-4.7-us JUST NOW
>> > and grade up those 47-c/n ports to 4.74.
>> > Girgen, Trevor, are you okay with this?
>>
>> Earlier you wrote:
>>
>> I'm planning to use c/n-v474-us.x86-unknown-freebsd.tar.gz
>> as distfiles of www/netscape47-c/n ports.
>>
>> and it sounds like you still want the same thing. You didn't explain why,
>> so I'm guessing either it's to save users from having to type ".us" or
>> it's because the "export" versions are already set up for automated
>> fetching.
It is because the browser binaries now Netscape inc. is distributing as
"{communicator,navigator}-v474-us.*.tar.gz" is NOT the "us" restricted
version, but almost world wide usable software.
I don't want to add ".us" option to those ports, and I'm convinced that
Girgen and Obrien agreed with this concept. Is this misunderstanding?
>> David O'Brien already updated the FreeBSD ".us" ports and I've
>> sent in an update for the BSDI ones, so it's only on the Linux ones where
>> work could be saved. As for shortening the names by replacing one port
>> with another, we can do that any time. Like I said, I'd like there to be
>> an "export" version--or several--left alone or downgraded to 4.72, for the
>> few users who might still want such a thing. Eventually, the "export"
>> ones should probably be removed, but it needn't be just now.
Once we commit a package-buildable port, those package files would be
created and be mirrored into all ftp sites. Removing them is hand-work of
each sites' maintainers.
Actually I've had to argue with Obrien before he committed his ports.
Meanwhile your bsdi-4.74 ports have not committed yet, so we have chance to
reduce ftp-sites' load.
Of cource I agree with your concept of 4.72 ports, but I guess thoese ports
should be divided as independent ports (I named "n472-c/n") for special
purpose for users stay in some countries where exportation is controlled with
strong encription.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007250305.MAA06332>