Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
Am 03.01.2011 17:55, schrieb Ray Rashif: > Hi guys > > During the recent community package addition sprint I noticed someone > mentioning rar [1], so I looked into any possible reason why it was > never brought into the repositories (not that I personally have any > need for it). I found none. Ubuntu appears to have had it in > multiverse for some time already, and a quick mail to RARLAB resulted > in a reply from Eugene Roshal stating that it's OK to redistribute if > no files are modified. It was removed from the repos and replaced by 'unrar' a few years ago, as the license of 'rar' did not allow redistribution, while 'unrar' did. I don't know when this happened, but I do know there was mailing list discussion and tpowa was involved. That is all I remember. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On 4 January 2011 01:08, Thomas Bächler wrote: > It was removed from the repos and replaced by 'unrar' a few years ago, > as the license of 'rar' did not allow redistribution, while 'unrar' did. > I don't know when this happened, but I do know there was mailing list > discussion and tpowa was involved. That is all I remember. Ahh, I knew there was a story behind this. Anyway, it looks like it can now be redistributed: 5. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may be freely distributed, with exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not modified in any way. a. No person or company may distribute separate parts of the package with the exception of the UnRAR components, without written permission of the copyright owner. b. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may not be distributed inside of any other software package without written permission of the copyright owner. c. Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included on the same distribution. This still wasn't clear to me, so I sent an e-mail and got this: "If you redistribute exactly the same set of files as in original rarlinux-4.0.b3.tar.gz tar archive, then it is allowed even if you changed the packaging format from tar.gz to format, which is more suitable for your Linux distribution. So yes, your redistribution approach is OK." Anyway, in light of the history, I think it is best to skip extra this time.
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 00:55:52 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > Hi guys > > During the recent community package addition sprint I noticed someone > mentioning rar [1], so I looked into any possible reason why it was > never brought into the repositories (not that I personally have any > need for it). I found none. Ubuntu appears to have had it in > multiverse for some time already, and a quick mail to RARLAB resulted > in a reply from Eugene Roshal stating that it's OK to redistribute if > no files are modified. > > I have never figured out how the trial thing works for this Linux > command-line version. It looks like a fully usable program to me that > will last for an indefinite period. > > Is there any objection to this? The only reason I'd be adding it to > extra is that it has 600 votes. Else, it can go to community. > > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20760 I don't think we should provide a binary rar package in any repository. Distribution might be possible by getting a written permission from the vendor but the actual free usage is limited to 40 days after which you have to buy a license. Users might not expect this restriction from a package we provide in our repos. Also it doesn't matter if there is some actual drm implementation which would prevent usage longer than 40 days or not. Using it for a longer period will still be illegal. Greetings, Pierre -- Pierre Schmitz, https://users.archlinux.de/~pierre
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 01:40 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote: > "If you redistribute exactly the same set of files as in original > rarlinux-4.0.b3.tar.gz tar archive, then it is allowed even if you > changed the packaging format from tar.gz to format, which is more > suitable for your Linux distribution. So yes, your redistribution > approach is OK." Well, exactly the same set of files will not suit a package: - we add a .PKGINFO file - we move around files (seems allowed though) - we don't distribute the Makefile and rar_static
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On 4 January 2011 01:46, Pierre Schmitz wrote: > I don't think we should provide a binary rar package in any repository. > Distribution might be possible by getting a written permission from the > vendor but the actual free usage is limited to 40 days after which you > have to buy a license. Users might not expect this restriction from a > package we provide in our repos. > > Also it doesn't matter if there is some actual drm implementation which > would prevent usage longer than 40 days or not. Using it for a longer > period will still be illegal. It appears the author is fine with that as long as the user has the license on the system. Full e-mail conversation (up til now) forwarded below. On 4 January 2011 01:52, Jan de Groot wrote: > Well, exactly the same set of files will not suit a package: > - we add a .PKGINFO file > - we move around files (seems allowed though) > - we don't distribute the Makefile and rar_static I think he should know that already, since I mentioned to him we are going to repackage for redistribution, and the package is going to be handled by a packaging tool. But just in case, now I've asked about this specifically, especially about rar_static. -- Forwarded message -- From: Eugene Roshal <...> Date: 4 January 2011 03:02 Subject: Re: Fwd: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form To: Ray Rashif Hello, > (1) Is it the following clause from the license that concerns this > subject of redistribution? Yes, it is the clause about the redistribution. > (2) This 'RAR for Linux' is a trial version of your product, so is > still subject to the 40-day shareware policy. There is no DRM or > mechanism in place to lock down the program in a Linux system, but > usage after 40 days would still be illegal and/or against the will of > the copyright/license holder(s), right? Right. But if you provide all files from the original package then user has the license.txt file and it is up to him to stop usage after the trial period. Eugene > Hi Eugene > Thank you so much for the prompt response. I just need you to confirm > 2 more things: > (1) Is it the following clause from the license that concerns this > subject of redistribution? > 5. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may be freely distributed, > with exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not > modified in any way. > a. No person or company may distribute separate parts of the package > with the exception of the UnRAR components, without written > permission of the copyright owner. > b. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may not be distributed > inside of any other software package without written permission > of the copyright owner. > c. Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included on the > same distribution. > (2) This 'RAR for Linux' is a trial version of your product, so is > still subject to the 40-day shareware policy. There is no DRM or > mechanism in place to lock down the program in a Linux system, but > usage after 40 days would still be illegal and/or against the will of > the copyright/license holder(s), right? > Thanks and regards. > On 4 January 2011 00:16, Eugene Roshal <...> wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> No modification is done to any of the contents. >> >> If you redistribute exactly the same set of files as in original >> rarlinux-4.0.b3.tar.gz tar archive, then it is allowed even if you >> changed the packaging format from tar.gz to format, which is more >> suitable for your Linux distribution. So yes, your redistribution >> approach is OK. >> >> Eugene >> >> >>> This is a forwarded message >>> From: Ray Rashif >>> To: supp...@rarlab.com >>> Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 12:06:17 PM >>> Subject: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form >> >>> ===8<==Original message text=== >>> Dear Sir/Mdm >> >>> On behalf of the Arch Linux distribution (operating system) project >>> [1], I would like to know whether redistribution of the command-line >>> tool [2] for Linux is permitted. The license itself does not mention >>> redistribution specifically for this version of your product, so there >>> is a little bit of confusion on my part. I apologise for not being >>> capable enough. >> >>> A 'binary package' comprises the contents included in the downloadable >>> compressed archive of the product. The compressed archive is simply >>> downloaded by our packaging tool, extracted, and finally scripted to >>> be placed in the proper directories on a Linux filesystem based on the >>> Linux File System Hierarchy. No modification is done to any of the >>> contents. >> >>> The end-result is a gzipped+lzma compressed archive (tarball) >>> 'package', which is distributed to our users via our repositories, and >>> thus mirrors across the globe. >> >>> Please let me know if such redistribution is OK. Thank you for your time. >> >>> [1] http
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
OK it's all good. The author seems pretty cool about it. See forwarded message below for the final conversation. -- Forwarded message -- From: Eugene Roshal <...> Date: 4 January 2011 17:21 Subject: Re: Fwd: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form To: Ray Rashif Hello, > - we add files required by our package manager (such as a .PKGINFO) > - we move around files (to fit our distribution) > - we don't distribute some files not needed by end-users (like > makefile and rar_static) This is ok. It is allowed to remove makefile and rar_static, if they are not suitable or needed in your Linux distribution. But all other files must be included. Eugene > Thank you so much. Here's a rundown of the packaging once again: > - we add files required by our package manager (such as a .PKGINFO) > - we move around files (to fit our distribution) > - we don't distribute some files not needed by end-users (like > makefile and rar_static) > Here is an unofficial buildscript maintained by a user (not an > official packager): http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/rar/rar/PKGBUILD > If we brought it on to our repositories for official redistribution > the main differences from the above script would be: > - we would INCLUDE unrar (and conflict with the package 'unrar' which > we already have) > - we would NOT INCLUDE rar_static > - we would provide a binary package instead of just this buildscript
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
[2011-01-04 13:24:42 +0800] Ray Rashif: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Eugene Roshal <...> > Date: 4 January 2011 03:02 > Subject: Re: Fwd: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form > To: Ray Rashif > > > (2) This 'RAR for Linux' is a trial version of your product, so is > > still subject to the 40-day shareware policy. There is no DRM or > > mechanism in place to lock down the program in a Linux system, but > > usage after 40 days would still be illegal and/or against the will of > > the copyright/license holder(s), right? > > Right. But if you provide all files from the original package then > user has the license.txt file and it is up to him to stop usage > after the trial period. Personally I think unrar is sufficient for most people so I don't think we need to package a program with such strict licensing terms. Do we already have sharewares in our repos? Cheers. -- Gaetan
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On Tuesday 04 January 2011 12:16:04 Gaetan Bisson wrote: > Personally I think unrar is sufficient for most people so I don't think > we need to package a program with such strict licensing terms. I think that we don't need rar in our repos too. -- Andrea Scarpino Arch Linux Developer
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
On 4 January 2011 19:16, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > Personally I think unrar is sufficient for most people so I don't think > we need to package a program with such strict licensing terms. Yes, that's correct. There is still some public education needed to encourage use of 7z for when archival/compression like RAR is needed. Just that there is significant demand for it, and other distributions appear to have it, so I thought, why not? The licensing isn't much different from other freeware that allow redistribution. The only thing is that the author rests assured that the users are provided with a license, and that it is then upto those users to comply with the terms and stop their usage or register/buy a license. > Do we already have sharewares in our repos? I don't think so. We have lots of freeware, but nothing like this. In fact, I was half-expecting a negative response from RARLAB, before I found out that 'rar' is actually being redistributed by at least Ubuntu [1] (Fedora doesn't even ship 'unrar'). [1] http://packages.ubuntu.com/maverick/rar
Re: [arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR
Il 03/01/2011 17:55, Ray Rashif ha scritto: Hi guys During the recent community package addition sprint I noticed someone mentioning rar [1], so I looked into any possible reason why it was never brought into the repositories (not that I personally have any need for it). I found none. Ubuntu appears to have had it in multiverse for some time already, and a quick mail to RARLAB resulted in a reply from Eugene Roshal stating that it's OK to redistribute if no files are modified. I have never figured out how the trial thing works for this Linux command-line version. It looks like a fully usable program to me that will last for an indefinite period. Is there any objection to this? The only reason I'd be adding it to extra is that it has 600 votes. Else, it can go to community. [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=20760 I think that we don't need rar in our repos -- Arch Linux Developer http://www.archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.it
