Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (95 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
[opensuse-project] Re: openSUSE build service - mldonkey removal
- From: Adrian Schröter <adrian@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:56:05 +0200
- Message-id: <200708140956.06065.adrian@xxxxxxx>
On Tuesday 14 August 2007 09:40:23 wrote Dirk Stoecker:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Adrian Schröter wrote:
> > > The minimum I expect in such cases is
> > > a) Explaining the reason. "This is illegal" is no reason. What is
> > > illegal?
> >
> > we can't do this in detail, since this can be used against us in court.
> >
> > In short, from my un-offical and not fully 100% understanding side, I can
> > say that courts might have the opinion that the itention for this
> > software is to be used for illegal tasks in first place.
>
> It is no reason and Novell (in this your lawyers) also knows this, but I
> understand, that Novell will not fight in these cases, as the company
> editions don't need tools like this and the end users don't pay enough.
> Sad but true. Anyway I ask myself how we should get useful laws, when the
> ones who have to power to fight don't do it.
In general you are right, but see it also from the other side. Novell Legal
can not fight against everything and cases like the SCO case do burn already
lot's of power of the legal departement.
Additionally, I see a problem here, since Novell can not prove to use
mldonkey (or any eDonky client) to use for a valid reason in his business.
> > > b) A discussion before explaining your point of view and giving the
> > > chance to find contra to it.
> >
> > As said before, this is not based on a discussion, but more on the
> > question what kind of risks Novell want to have. The software is hosted
> > on novell servers, so they are responsible for it and can be sued.
> >
> > > c) A time to react to any deletions before they occur including fixing
> > > the offending packages if possible or backup the data before deleting.
> >
> > I do not think that mldonkey can be fixed in this regard without making
> > it useless.
>
> This is not mainly for mldonkey but in general. This will not be the last
> time such problems occur. But when making a "fait accompli" you will
> discourage the users which have the knowledge to really do things well.
> For me (and probably 99% of OS developers) it a matter of fact, that I
> have more projects than time to invest in them. So I need to choose.
> Things like this wont help a lot in decisions.
yes, believe me, I know this very well. But I dunno how I can help you here.
I started the Black List page, so that people can inform better before
starting to work on a certain package. I hope this helps for the future.
sorry, but as said before, we are only the messenger.
adrian
--
Adrian Schroeter
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
email: adrian@xxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Adrian Schröter wrote:
> > > The minimum I expect in such cases is
> > > a) Explaining the reason. "This is illegal" is no reason. What is
> > > illegal?
> >
> > we can't do this in detail, since this can be used against us in court.
> >
> > In short, from my un-offical and not fully 100% understanding side, I can
> > say that courts might have the opinion that the itention for this
> > software is to be used for illegal tasks in first place.
>
> It is no reason and Novell (in this your lawyers) also knows this, but I
> understand, that Novell will not fight in these cases, as the company
> editions don't need tools like this and the end users don't pay enough.
> Sad but true. Anyway I ask myself how we should get useful laws, when the
> ones who have to power to fight don't do it.
In general you are right, but see it also from the other side. Novell Legal
can not fight against everything and cases like the SCO case do burn already
lot's of power of the legal departement.
Additionally, I see a problem here, since Novell can not prove to use
mldonkey (or any eDonky client) to use for a valid reason in his business.
> > > b) A discussion before explaining your point of view and giving the
> > > chance to find contra to it.
> >
> > As said before, this is not based on a discussion, but more on the
> > question what kind of risks Novell want to have. The software is hosted
> > on novell servers, so they are responsible for it and can be sued.
> >
> > > c) A time to react to any deletions before they occur including fixing
> > > the offending packages if possible or backup the data before deleting.
> >
> > I do not think that mldonkey can be fixed in this regard without making
> > it useless.
>
> This is not mainly for mldonkey but in general. This will not be the last
> time such problems occur. But when making a "fait accompli" you will
> discourage the users which have the knowledge to really do things well.
> For me (and probably 99% of OS developers) it a matter of fact, that I
> have more projects than time to invest in them. So I need to choose.
> Things like this wont help a lot in decisions.
yes, believe me, I know this very well. But I dunno how I can help you here.
I started the Black List page, so that people can inform better before
starting to work on a certain package. I hope this helps for the future.
sorry, but as said before, we are only the messenger.
adrian
--
Adrian Schroeter
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
email: adrian@xxxxxxx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx
| < Previous | Next > |