Wrt Bug 177626, we have been repeatedly accused by blackace (relevant parts of the posts on -core under [1] [2]) of copyright violation - which has been allegedly caused simply by committing a trivial bugfix to the ebuild in question (see the above bug). Regardless of the fact that the ebuild is GPL-2 licensed, with copyright owned by Gentoo Foundations, and regardless of the fact that the script itself is licensed under Artistic license, which explicitely permits such fixes in Article 2 (see [3]) I strongly feel that: - our release media should NOT ever again rely on packages where one of the authors is threatening other devs with a legal action and accusing fellow-developers of breach of copyright (regardless the fact that he's got no merit) just because they've fixed bugs in a package he's a co-author of. - we should NOT be distributing such things in Gentoo simply because it's not worth the potential legal trouble. [1] <snip> Again, not sure what your point is here except to post a bug where an asshat violated a third party's copyright on a component of a splash theme by modifying an ebuild owned by the livecd herd, thus stepping on a bunch of toes and in fact violating the law, and where several other asshats yourself included posted comments containing drivel trying to justify policy and copyright violations. </snip> [2] <snip> I maintain copyright on the script I wrote which is what zzam used sed in the ebuild to modify, violating my copyright. I didn't push the issue beyond getting on zzam for what he did, because let's get real, it's a splash theme for pete's sake, hardly worth even paying my attorney to send a letter. </snip> [3] <snip> 2. You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other modifications derived from the Public Domain or from the Copyright Holder. A Package modified in such a way shall still be considered the Standard Version. </snip>
To clarify, I don't believe I ever threatened legal action, rather I have stated several times I don't intend to. Further, jakub has pointed out clauses of the OSI certified Artistic license which do allow bug fixes, but the Artistic license does provide that the author be allowed to include modifications in the standard package, which leads me to the only real beef I've had with bug 177626, which is that no one ever let me know about it, I had to learn of it randomly on irc one day because I happened to be watching #gentoo-dev for something else. If jakub wants to blow this out of proportion and he must because he is, then by all means remove all the themes. And let me know if I should save you the trouble of ever having to deal with anything like this again and just not do any more of them. (Un-restricting this bug since it doesn't merit being developers only...jakub should be all about open anyway, right?)
(In reply to comment #1) > (Un-restricting this bug since it doesn't merit being developers only...jakub > should be all about open anyway, right?) The bug was restricted intentionally because in contains quotes from -core ML.
I don't see anything particularly sensitive, but you're right in principle. Re-restricting.
Well, I am removing the restriction. I'm also closing this bug. It's ludicrous. Jakub, if you're unable to deal with your personal problems on your own, that is one thing, but trying to attack packages in the tree based on your personal disagreements with the upstream maintainer is not going to be allowed or entertained. Resolve your issues on your own time and leave the rest of Gentoo out of it. If you're unable to resolve your issues, you're welcome to leave. This package is no different from countless others in the tree.
(In reply to comment #4) > trying to attack packages in the tree based on your > personal disagreements with the upstream maintainer is not going to be allowed > or entertained. Resolve your issues on your own time and leave the rest of > Gentoo out of it. If you're unable to resolve your issues, you're welcome to > leave. This package is no different from countless others in the tree. Erm, unlike with other packages in the tree, developers are being attacked by upstream for alleged copyright violations with this one, and there's no guarantee that it's not gonna happen again; the licensing issue is in no way resolved. This bug and related legal issues are for Gentoo trustees as a whole to resolve in one way or the other, (i.e., getting the scripts relicensed or dropping this package), not for you to decide.
I see no threats other than the ones that were proposed by you, by putting words into blackace's mouth. Please keep your personal grudges off Bugzilla. This is not a valid bug. As the Trustee primarily responsible for deciding copyright and licensing issues, I have looked at your proposed issue and deemed it as invalid. You asked for two things, neither of which I feel are a legal issue. First, Release Engineering can use whatever they want, within the terms of the law. They did. We're not going to ask them to stop shipping something, as the Trustees are a legal body and do not have control over the release media for any reason other than Trademark or Intellectual Property concerns. We are fully within the rights of the license to redistribute blackace's works. This is a non-issue. Second, there is no legal issue with redistributing things under the licenses chosen by blackace. Once again, you're trying to attempt to use your personal bias to bypass protocol and get something removed. We are within the letter of the license. As long as we are following the license, we are not breaking the law. If we are not breaking the law, then the Trustees have no say, whatsoever. As such, I am marking this bug as INVALID and ask you to not REOPEN it. This is not a legal issue. I'm sorry if you feel differently, but your continued persistence on this issue will simply waste Trustee time.
(In reply to comment #6) > I see no threats other than the ones that were proposed by you, by putting > words into blackace's mouth. Please keep your personal grudges off Bugzilla. > This is not a valid bug. As the Trustee primarily responsible for deciding > copyright and licensing issues, I have looked at your proposed issue and deemed > it as invalid. As a member of releng and as a participant of the Bug 177626 flamefest, sorry but there's clear conflict of interests here. As such, once again - this bug is something to be decided by Gentoo trustees as a *whole*, NOT by yourself. And no, I'm not putting anything into anyone's mouth. Please, stop resolving a bug where you are not and cannot be impartial for the reasons stated above. Fellow-developers should not ever be harassed in similar manner for the mere fact that they've fixed a long-ignored bug.
Listen, you are not getting the point here. It doesn't matter, at all, about my involvement. The Trustees are a legal body. To get the Trustees to ask for a package to be removed, it would need to show a legal issue requiring it. There is no legal issue here. We are fully complying with the licenses, as laid out by upstream. Your issue with blackace notwithstanding, this doesn't belong to the Trustees, at all. As far as the Trustees would be concerned, this is a non-issue, since it has nothing to do with Gentoo's intellectual property or legal standing. I'm sorry that you are having an issue, but it isn't the Trustee's job to resolve it. My conflict of interest does not matter, at all. There is nothing in the Gentoo Foundation's articles of incorporation or proposed bylaws which account for a conflict of interest. We're perfectly allowed, by our articles and bylaws, to be conflicted. Sorry, that's the legality of it, plain and simple. You're more than welcome to appeal to the Trustees to have these articles changed to provide for potential conflicts of interest, but what we have now does not. I'm not making a decision on this. I am merely stating that this bug is invalid in its current form. There is no legal decision to be made. If you continue with your current course of action, I am going to ask for action to be taken against you. I have already shown how this is not a legal matter, and therefore not an issue for the Trustees. As a Trustee, this is fully within my rights. If you would wish to appeal this, feel free to get another Trustee to reopen this issue. I want to make this as simple as possible. You do not have the authority to request a review on this. You will need to find another Trustee. If you continue without another Trustee, I will be forced to have action taken against you. I do not care what your opinion is on this and I am stating this as a fact and my personal position, as a Trustee. This is not a legal matter. It does not fall under the Trustee's jurisdiction. We are within the letter of the license. No legal action has been brought to the Trustee's attention, and we are the legal arm of the Gentoo Foundation. You are not. Cease and desist your actions immediately. This is not a request.
No comment. I've repeatedly asked you to stay out and stop resolving this bug, since there's a clear conflict of interests here. You've repeatedly refused, and resolved this bug once again. You gave the remaining trustees no chance of stating their position of this, and you keep ignoring and denying the whole legal issue here. You even proudly state that you don't give a damn about the conflict of interests, and that you are free to abuse your position as you wish. To sum all of the above - you miserably failed your trustee duties. Enough said, I'm not going to fight the windmills here.
(In reply to comment #3) > I don't see anything particularly sensitive, but you're right in principle. > Re-restricting. > Well, it's not a matter of sensitivity so much as a matter of practice of of policy. Any discussion triggered by posts to -core has the potential to become sensitive, and we generally don't share that. Since we just had a long thread about making public a date from -core, it's probably best to restrict posts from -core for the moment. So I am doing that. (Granted, the date had along with it a request not to publish it, but such a request on a post to -core is just reinforcement, is it not?) If there are reasons for keeping this bug open, or if I am just wrong in my assumptions in the first paragraph, please clarify. Re-restricting until then.
