[openbeos] Re: unrar
- From: Michael Phipps <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:44:38 -0500
But a simple email wouldn't suffice, necessarily. It should be something in
writing that says that we have permission.
It comes to a macro-sized version of the old arguement with linking in
libraries. Think about a compiler vendor that includes value added libraries
with their compiler that are under a non-free license. Purchasers of the
compilers can use the libraries in their applications without restriction.
Taking a couple of extreme cases: One is the case where you add a very thin
veneer to those libraries to make an executable that others can invoke from
their own app through messaging or something. This case is a "clear" violation
of the intent of the compiler writer. The other extreme case is just the
opposite - writing a huge app that uses the library but always being wary that
the compiler company will sue you.
In this case, rar is not a significant portion of our distribution. No one
could *reasonably* argue that people are (ok, will be) downloading (or
purchasing) Haiku R1 just to get to rar. Or libc or anything else we include.
It just doesn't make sense.
On 2005-01-28 at 16:28:28 [-0500], Axel Dörfler wrote:
> Markus <kamikazow@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Axel Dörfler schrieb:
> > > I think this is a problem, as people might want to charge money for a
> > > Haiku distribution. And I am not sure if the inclusion of unrar would
> > > prevent this (ie. everyone selling a Haiku distribution would need to
> > > remove it).
> > No, it's forbidden to charge for unrar itself. It's not forbidden to sell
> > Haiku and include unrar as free addon.
> > And if in doubt: Just ask RarLab.
>
> That would be indeed a good idea in this case. Does anyone volunteers to do
> this? If they do have a legal department, the query should probably go there.
>
> Bye,
> Axel.
Other related posts:
