> On Sat, 9 Sep 2017, R0b0t1 wrote:
> I suspect the links in ebuilds are more like torrent files, in which
> case I think it makes sense to wait to be contacted to remove the
> links.
Ebuilds aren't hypertext, so by definition they don't contain any
"links". They merely contain lists of URIs
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 3:58 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:33:49 -0500
> R0b0t1 wrote:
>
>> In any case it is my understanding that the issue is that simple. It's
>> the reason torrents and magnet links exist, and why there are no legal
>> claims possible against websites which h
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:33:49 -0500
R0b0t1 wrote:
> In any case it is my understanding that the issue is that simple. It's
> the reason torrents and magnet links exist, and why there are no legal
> claims possible against websites which host magnet links.
The entire court case against PirateBay wa
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:33 PM, R0b0t1 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500
>> R0b0t1 wrote:
>>
>>> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to
>>> copyright infringement (besides an immediate payout). I
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 10:56 AM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500
> R0b0t1 wrote:
>
>> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to
>> copyright infringement (besides an immediate payout). In the US they cite
>> the reasoning I gave, from memor
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Ciaran McCreesh <
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:10:54 -0500
> Gordon Pettey wrote:
> > And this is all irrelevant since the copyright applies to the
> > software, not the location you obtain it from. Nobody commits
> > copyright in
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:10:54 -0500
Gordon Pettey wrote:
> Distribution licenses are another thing, but if the original SRC_URI from
> the ebuild wasn't RESTICT="fetch", what makes anybody think that would
> suddenly change with a new SRC_URI?
I've seen terms that state people aren't allowed to re
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 11:10:54 -0500
Gordon Pettey wrote:
> And this is all irrelevant since the copyright applies to the
> software, not the location you obtain it from. Nobody commits
> copyright infringement by buying a used book from their neighbour
> instead of buying it at Half Price Books.
> D
And this is all irrelevant since the copyright applies to the software, not
the location you obtain it from. Nobody commits copyright infringement by
buying a used book from their neighbour instead of buying it at Half Price
Books.
Distribution licenses are another thing, but if the original SRC_UR
On Sat, 9 Sep 2017 03:56:38 +1200
Kent Fredric wrote:
> > >> Sir, please see my above comment about building ballistic
> > >> missiles. It may be important for the Gentoo Foundation to add a
> > >> disclaimer similar to the one I mentioned. I would hate for the
> > >> Foundation or any of its admi
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:11:51 -0500
R0b0t1 wrote:
> Then I'm quite confused as to why people seem to be extremely attentive to
> copyright infringement (besides an immediate payout). In the US they cite
> the reasoning I gave, from memory.
>
> Maybe that was for trademarks?
This is one of those p
On Friday, September 8, 2017, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, R0b0t1 wrote:
>
>> Downloading does not imply committing a felony. As far as anyone can
>> tell it is impossible to prosecute someone for downloading something
>> they already own (regardless of what any EULA has claim
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>
> Quoting from "all-rights-reserved":
>
> | This package has an explicit "all rights reserved" clause, or comes
> | without any license, or only with a disclaimer. This means that you
> | have only the rights that are granted to you by law. I
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>> napisał:
>>> Are you saying it is sufficient to just point the SRC_URI at the
>>> new URL and remove the mask? As far as
On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> Maybe find yourself a lawyer, and ask him. We're all volunteers,
I've already done the research. There is no legal requirement to
contact the authors before changing the SRC_URI.
> and we're no in way obligated to give legal advices to you
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, R0b0t1 wrote:
> Downloading does not imply committing a felony. As far as anyone can
> tell it is impossible to prosecute someone for downloading something
> they already own (regardless of what any EULA has claimed).
Sure, if the user already has rightfully obtained th
W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 17∶56 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> > napisał:
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > W dniu cz
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:56:32 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> And how would I figure it out, considering that simply asking on the
> list doesn't seem to yield a straight answer? Do you really need me
> to put it on the Council agenda? Or do we unmask it, let QA mask it
> 10 minutes later, then go ba
Hello,
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has
permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery
slope.
>>>
>>> We don't, and for a package that co
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
>> > napisał:
>> > > On Thu, S
W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 16∶42 -0400, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> > napisał:
> > > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > >
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
> napisał:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> >
>> > Don't you think there is a difference b
W dniu czw, 07.09.2017 o godzinie 06∶21 -0700, użytkownik Rich Freeman
napisał:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> > Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package
> > that has a known upstream a
On Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:04:34 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> >>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has
> >>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery
> >>> slope.
> >>
> >> We don't, and for a package that c
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> Don't you think there is a difference between downloading a package
> that has a known upstream and that is also carried by other distros,
> and downloading a license-less package from a random
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has
>>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery
>>> slope.
>>
>> We don't, and for a package that comes with a license (as the vast
>> majority of packages does) it norm
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> Do we routinely confirm that any site we list in SRC_URI has
>> permission to redistribute files? That seems like a slippery slope.
>
> We don't, and for a package that comes with a license (
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>>
>>> Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found"
>>> when it's obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even
>>> pe
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:52 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Gordon Pettey wrote:
>
>> Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found" when
>> it's obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even performed
>> to find an alternative?
>> https://neverwinterv
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2017, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found" when
> it's obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even performed
> to find an alternative?
> https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn1/module/shadowlords-dreamcatcher-and-dem
Can these package.mask notes stop saying "no alternative found" when it's
obvious five seconds of Google searching was not even performed to find an
alternative?
https://neverwintervault.org/project/nwn1/module/shadowlords-dreamcatcher-and-demon-campaigns
has live links, and the exe even matches th
# Austin English (05 Sep 2017)
# Download has been broken for nearly a year, no alternative found
# Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/599390
# Removal in 30 days
games-rpg/nwn-shadowlordsdreamcatcherdemon
--
-Austin
Austin English
Gentoo Developer
GPG: 00B3 2957 B94B F3E1
signature.asc
Descriptio
32 matches
Mail list logo
