Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:53:57 -0500 (EST) From: mi@video-collage.com To: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> Cc: Ade Lovett <ade@lovett.com>, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/12739: New port: AT&T's DjVu Netscape plug-in Message-ID: <200003290254.VAA00849@xxx.video-collage.com> In-Reply-To: <20000328191304.D9136@argon.blackdawn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 28 Mar, Will Andrews wrote:
= > If it takes so little, why not leave it there?
= When you consider ~1,500-2,500 ports with a.out support checking, you
= quickly realize it doesn't take "so little".
But this port does NOT check for a.out... It only checks if TAR is set
and if not -- sets it... This can be removed if it bothers...
= > Yes, but we don't have to go out of our way to enforce that --
= > again, we are not a party the agreement -- it is between user and
= > AT&T. As a courtesy to the latter, we tell the user about it, but,
= > strictly speaking, I don't think we are required to do that.
=
= I'm afraid that unless you're a lawyer, it simply makes better sense
= to avoid any possible lawsuit with AT&T. So I think that this license
= needs to be shown to the user and they need to accept it. The only
= valid argument you've placed against this, which is that it requires
= IS_INTERACTIVE, weighs less than the potential lawsuits.
= I'm not trying to put you down here, I simply think that we should do
= everything we can to avoid possible lawsuits, to the point of lunacy.
= This is a free (as in "freedom") project and I would hate to see that
= change.
Well, I think, that by assuming responsibilities of a licensee we do
indeed act as lunatics :-) The difference is you seem to be willing to
act as such and I don't... (' Respectfully,
-mi
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?200003290254.VAA00849>