Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 19:13:04 -0500 From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.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: <20000328191304.D9136@argon.blackdawn.com> In-Reply-To: <200003282350.SAA04257@xxx.video-collage.com>; from mi@video-collage.com on Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:50:05PM -0500 References: <20000328173006.N69223@lovett.com> <200003282350.SAA04257@xxx.video-collage.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 06:50:05PM -0500, mi@video-collage.com wrote: > = My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that support for both 2.x and > = aout 3.x has ceased. > > If it takes so little, why not leave it there? Ade is correct, we are dropping support for a.out, period. This was discussed early last year, and it was determined that a year from then, we would drop a.out support. It has now been almost 16 months and counting. We are only now dropping support for a.out. When you consider ~1,500-2,500 ports with a.out support checking, you quickly realize it doesn't take "so little". By the time we finish gleaning a.out from most of our ports, the only real remaining bits will be XFree86-aoutlibs, netscape, and maybe a few others. Note: I may be wrong on some of these points, but this is still my stand. > 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. -- Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? 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?20000328191304.D9136>