Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 09:00:59 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ion3 removal (Re: Ion3 license violation) Message-ID: <20071213090059.d5d6b6e7.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <slrnfm21lc.7a5.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> References: <20071212213200.D576216A469@hub.freebsd.org> <200712121701.57460.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <20071212183542.f9bf5e55.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <200712121930.46708.mi%2Bmill@aldan.algebra.com> <20071213021217.GA3535@soaustin.net> <slrnfm1ol8.mqu.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071213080139.GA14110@soaustin.net> <slrnfm1rce.so4.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi> <20071213090833.GA15789@soaustin.net> <slrnfm21lc.7a5.tuomov@jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In response to Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov@iki.fi>: > On 2007-12-13, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2007 at 08:30:06AM +0000, Tuomo Valkonen wrote: > >> The copyright holder reserves the right to refine the definition of > >> significant changes on a per-case basis. > > > > In other words, a moving target -- which implies, to me, that to be > > legally in the clear, that we would first have to vet every possible > > change or modification, including patches. > > Notice the "a priori": it means you're allowed to do that without legal > threat until further notice to the contrary. Did you not understand the part where Mark described the requirement to avoid possible legal trouble? Since you felt the need to snip out the part of Mark's post that was truly relevant to your reply, I'll reproduce it here: "But in the case of implied threat of legal action, in my opinion, it's not worth anyone's time to try to iterate over every possibility to find out to make sure they -- and others, on their behalf -- aren't somehow liable. The risk is simply too high." Stop abusing this mailing list for your own purposes. Let's state some facts: *) FreeBSD has agreed to remove the offending port in order to comply with your license requirements. However, you continue to complain. *) _Anyone_ could submit a patch to the port to abide by your license requirements and it's likely that it will be committed, yet _nobody_ has. Even you, Tuomo, claim to have bold and revolutionary ideas on package distribution yet would rather argue than WRITE A PATCH AND SUBMIT IT! Beyond that, you've _IGNORED_ posts that I've made in the past suggesting this. *) You blame "distro folks" as abusing developers and expecting them to just provide free work, then you turn around an complain that the FreeBSD people should bend over backwards to accommodate the software you wrote. You're doing the _exact_ thing you accuse others of doing. *) You continually abuse this mailing list by twisting other persons posts to your agenda by snipping relevant information, replying only to the parts that you want to, and redirecting the meaning of other posts. Please go somewhere that you can find emotional healing Tuomo. I, for one, will be glad to see you return as a sane person but have no desire to watch this thread continue as long as you're sick. -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071213090059.d5d6b6e7.wmoran>