Re: [SFE-devel] IPS repository and encumbered packages

[Shawn W. <sw...@op...>]

Adam Retter wrote:
> 2009/7/27 Shawn Walker <sw...@op...>:
>> In short, regardless of what other US-based companies may choose or not
>> choose to do, it doesn't matter.  Legal counsel is only valid for the party
>> it is provided to.  That means that if Sun's legal counsel told them they
>> could not, while RedHat's legal counsel told them they could, that Sun has
>> to follow their own legal counsel.
> 
> Okay that makes sense.
> 
> Do you know how the Blastwave/Sun relationship words? The Blastwave
> site now seems to be branded with Sun and network.com logo's and they
> do provide a much older mplayer package already.

Those are just indications of association; not ownership.  Anyone can 
put a sun logo or network.com logo on their website.

> Perhaps they operate in a manner that allows Sun to provide the
> infrastructure and them to provide the encumbered packages? Do you
> know who I might contact to try and arrange something similar for the
> SFE packages?

No idea; ask Dennis.  I just know that pkg.opensolaris.org can't host 
them for certain.

> I have CC'd Dennis Clarke of Blastwave, perhaps they already have a
> plan to offer the more up to date SFE encumbered packages? If not
> perhaps Sun would be willing to provide network.com infrastructure in
> a similar way to Blastwave so that we might set up a SFE encumbered
> IPS repo?

I have no idea what Sun would be willing to do.  My understanding is 
that, Sun directly, as an entity, is not willing to host this content.

network.com is essentially an 'ISP hosting service' so may not have the 
same legal requirements, but again, you'd have to talk to someone at 
network.com.  I am not a lawyer and cannot tell you what the details are.

Cheers,
-- 
Shawn Walker