Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:30:44 -0500 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+kde@aldan.algebra.com> To: Philip Paeps <philip@freebsd.org>, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Subject: Re: Ion3 removal Message-ID: <200712131030.44931@aldan> In-Reply-To: <20071213143306.GA27297@soaustin.net> References: <20071213024946.GA4959@soaustin.net> <200712130923.24488@aldan> <20071213143306.GA27297@soaustin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On =DE=C5=D4=D7=C5=D2 13 =C7=D2=D5=C4=C5=CE=D8 2007, Mark Linimon wrote: =3D Wrong. =9AYou do cvs add, cvs com. That would lose the prior history of the port, AFAIK. =3D At least in the US, a court of law won't accept "we'll be deleting the =3D infringing software Pretty Soon." =9AOnce notified of the infringement,= you =3D are obliged to take immediate action. =46ORBIDDEN prevents the port from being built just as immediately. You can= then=20 proceed to remove the already built packages from the ftp-site, which was=20 done anyway. It is perfectly clear from the thread(s) -- and most participants don't eve= n=20 deny it -- that the personal feelings towards Tuomo have hastened the port'= s=20 demise. Despite the ongoing port-freeze... I share some of the feeling, but we add/remove ports to improve the experie= nce=20 of users (including ourselves), not of the authors. =3D 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= =20 all a major liability: http://technocrat.net/d/2006/6/30/5032 Tuomo's demands aren't unheard of either -- Sun's requirement, that Java=20 binaries be "certified" isn't that different... And, unlike Tuomo, they=20 already have brought a major lawsuit against a license-violator. But we=20 continue to have JDK-ports (we just don't distribute the resulting=20 binaries)... Bill Moran wrote: =3D > should've been addressed by using FORBIDDEN/IGNORE instead. =3D Perhaps you're right. However, I'd like to hear the opinion of a lawyer =3D as to whether this is acceptable or not. The (mathematical) expectactions of the payments to lawyers equal the amoun= t=20 multiplied by the probability of having to pay. You are suggesting a paymen= t=20 of $200-$300 (for consultation) with the probability of 1 against the=20 $10K-20K multiplied by, uhm, something so close to zero, that it may not fi= t=20 in this message. If anybody ever does file a suit against FreeBSD, it will= =20 not be Tuomo. The thread has riched the sad point of tiring the readers regardless of=20 contents long ago, and the port-maintainer has finally chimed in saying, he= =20 is going to resurrect the port portmgr-permitting. The portmgr implied=20 permission already, so let's get back to coding. Tuomo Valkonen wrote: =3D However, there's still the problem of binary packages ending up in the =3D release snapshots without prominent notices of obsoleteness. So, like Java and others, let's mark this port (upon ressurection) RESTRICT= ED=20 and NO_CDROM so that binaries aren't distributed and the user always has to= =20 build from source -- but with the port's aid. The Xinerama can be among the= =20 OPTIONS (default off) thus respecting the requirement, that modifications b= e=20 only on user's request. -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200712131030.44931>