Re: non-free package archive
On Friday 13 May 2005 13:05, Frederik Schueler wrote: Hello, thank you both Adam and Kaare, for checking all those copyright files. I just started building the distributable packages -- by tomorrow most of those non-free packages should be in the unofficial sarge archive. Thank you On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Adam M wrote: But I'm glad our independent findings matched up (on the conservative side) with the exception of my libforms-doc blunder. Kind regards Frederik Schueler -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free package archive
On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 11:14 -0500, Adam M wrote: On 5/12/05, Kaare Hviid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 01:13 -0500, Adam M wrote: Hi, I have compiled a list of packages in non-free that can be included in Amd64's non-free. A few days ago I have posted the entire list of good and bad packages on debian-devel[1]. They can also be found at, http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/ bad.txt - not distributable good.txt - distributable I think non-free is important to be part of Amd64 port for Sarge due to a few important packages like, like RFCs and the nvidia drivers. Now that I have reviewed these licenses, will Amd64 port carry non-free in Sarge? - Adam I just finished my own review of the non-free packages. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I just thought I'd give it a shot and have a look at the non-free licenses. Also, I'm by no means a lawyer, nor am I a DD - I'm just a layman. I've used the Packages list of a current i386 *sarge* box, and had invaluable help from http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/. My criteria I didn't use nonfree.alioth.debian.org and I didn't use Packages. I used current Sources and read the dreaded debian/*copyright files from each of the source packages. It might have been better if you raised some questions about why I put something in good.txt and other stuff in bad.txt and then point to relevant sections of the licenses I looked at [1]. Trying to match the binary-source can be tricky. I wasn't aware that you had done a proper audit of the licenses when I embarked on looking at it. Once finished, I found your mail, and rather than throwing away my own list, I replied you, thinking someone might want a second opinion. I have also read each of the dreaded debian/copyright files, (which nonfree.alioth.debian.org links to) and have tried to find further information when it was lacking. Our findings match up pretty good anyway, with the exception of libforms-doc (that I find clearly non-distributable), and moria and trn4 (where I didn't find anything compelling hindering distribution). Anyway, I just want to look at the nvidia package where you said, Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files). Debian, and apparently Ubuntu, have special permission for distributing. The intent is probably only to deny OEMs to rebundle the stuff without nVidia's permission. What I think nVidia does is use the same license for distribution for Linux, Windows and Mac but they have an exception for Linux distributions that allow redistribution of their binary drivers. The binary drivers themselves are not permitted to be modified (how? with a hex editor? :). GPLed stuff of course can be modified. I found it unclear if distributing it in a .deb was allowed, as it could be seen as of a form of modification beyond unzipping of compressed files. As such, I also marked it with a ?, denoting that I couldn't tell if it was good or bad. Given nVidia's presence in the Linux desktop market, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't *promote* distribution of ready-to-go driver packages for the Debian amd64 sarge port. Didn't they even sponsor Gentoo with amd64 hardware to get going? If nothing else, I think the nVidia drivers and the RFCs must be distributed by Amd64 for Sarge if the port is going to have some penetration into the destrop market. If there is no nvidia drivers, people will try to install them with the nvidia installer and butcher their installations. They will then complain that Amd64 Sarge is crap because they cannot even get their FX card to work! I certainly agree - the number of consumer desktops with the amd64 nVidia combination is staggering to the brink of almost becoming synonymous in the consumer electronics shops. -ukh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free package archive
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 09:12:45AM +0200, Kaare Hviid wrote: I found it unclear if distributing it in a .deb was allowed, as it could be seen as of a form of modification beyond unzipping of compressed files. As such, I also marked it with a ?, denoting that I couldn't tell if it was good or bad. Given nVidia's presence in the Linux desktop market, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't *promote* distribution of ready-to-go driver packages for the Debian amd64 sarge port. Didn't they even sponsor Gentoo with amd64 hardware to get going? My reading of the nvidia copyright/README seemed to explicitly state repackaging the files was allowed (seemed almost encouraged). Changing the binaries is not (although why would you want to), where binaries are the .o files inside that are used as part of the linking. I certainly agree - the number of consumer desktops with the amd64 nVidia combination is staggering to the brink of almost becoming synonymous in the consumer electronics shops. Well ATI and nVidia seem to be fighting over who gets the bigger part of what intel doesn't own with their integrated video. Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free package archive
On 5/13/05, Kaare Hviid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wasn't aware that you had done a proper audit of the licenses when I embarked on looking at it. Once finished, I found your mail, and rather than throwing away my own list, I replied you, thinking someone might want a second opinion. I have also read each of the dreaded debian/copyright files, (which nonfree.alioth.debian.org links to) and have tried to find further information when it was lacking. Our findings match up pretty good anyway, with the exception of libforms-doc (that I find clearly non-distributable), and moria and trn4 (where I didn't find anything compelling hindering distribution). libforms-doc doesn't seem to be distributable... I better move that to bad.txt... fast :) For moria, I found this, Moria may be copied and modified freely, but may not be sold or marketed IN ANY FORM I don't know what marketed IN ANY FORM refers to. To me, any form of advertising is marketed. Amd64 advertised on Debian mailing lists and such. I didn't feel comfortable. Lastly for trn4, no debian/*copyright file(s) I could extract. But I'm glad our independent findings matched up (on the conservative side) with the exception of my libforms-doc blunder. - Adam
Re: non-free package archive
Hello, thank you both Adam and Kaare, for checking all those copyright files. I just started building the distributable packages -- by tomorrow most of those non-free packages should be in the unofficial sarge archive. On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 10:44:47AM -0500, Adam M wrote: But I'm glad our independent findings matched up (on the conservative side) with the exception of my libforms-doc blunder. Kind regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: non-free package archive
On Thursday 12 May 2005 01:13, Adam M wrote: Hi, I have compiled a list of packages in non-free that can be included in Amd64's non-free. A few days ago I have posted the entire list of good and bad packages on debian-devel[1]. They can also be found at, http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/ bad.txt - not distributable good.txt - distributable I think non-free is important to be part of Amd64 port for Sarge due to a few important packages like, like RFCs and the nvidia drivers. Now that I have reviewed these licenses, will Amd64 port carry non-free in Sarge? - Adam PS. I'm not on the list, so please CC any replies. Thanks! [1] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/05/msg00403.html Thank you -- Damon L. Chesser [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free package archive
On 5/12/05, Larry Doolittle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Adam - Thanks for making this list. Debian should have done something like this a long time ago. I can see this turning into a long-term project (not necessarily by you), perhaps adding flags covering restrictions on modification, and distribution for fee. Yes, but that would include virtually all of non-free! Virtually all packages I looked at prohibited distribution for profit and most prohibited distribution for any fee. Some prohibited distribution on CD/DVD media, but are ok for network distribution. I'm only familiar with a few of the packages listed in bad.txt, and I would have guessed that they would be categorized as good, since all the restrictions are on modification, not redistribution. qmail I got confused by the license. First he allows people to distribute unmodified copies. Then Dan will approve distribution of specific binary packages and then something about OK to distribute. Then being bamboozled by Microsoft and not to worry *unless* you distribute software. Huh? http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/qmail.txt ezmlm Dan Bernstein grants any use of ezmlm, including patching and distributing diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions without his approval, so ezmlm is non-free. See http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ezmlm.txt figlet Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and * its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided * that, ... * * (ii) any modifications to this source file must be sent, via e-mail * to the copyright owner (currently [EMAIL PROTECTED]) within * 30 days of such modification. http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/figlet.txt So, I really do NOT like this. But I guess AMD64 can distribute it if they want. I wouldn't :) lmbench My script didn't find debian/copyright. I didn't look closer so I put it in the bad category. You can see the debian/*copyright files I found in, http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ lmbench had nothin... http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/lmbench.txt ucspi-tcp Dan Bernstein grants any use of ucspi-tcp, including patching and distributing diffs; but he doesn't allow binary distributions without his approval. See http://pobox.com/~djb/softwarelaw.html http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/ucspi-tcp.txt I'm curious to hear your rationale for putting these in bad.txt. I only looked in debian/*copyright files and searched for dist keyword. Then I read the relevent areas around it. I read the entire liceses in some cases. In one case, the license was crap, but then copyright holders explained that it was OK to distribute by Linux distributions (not just Debian). Anyway, what I think ended up in bad.txt were not only packages that cannot be distributed by Amd64, but also packages with no debian/*copyright file(s) as well as packages which had questionable licenses. Some of the packages in the latter category had contradictory and/or confusing licenses. - Adam PS. I think there are some adobe fonts that have a license that allow for free distribution and use. And then there is a notice: Patents pending.!. Anyway, I put those in good category, but as you can see, these are clearly non-free!
Re: non-free package archive
On 5/12/05, Kaare Hviid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 01:13 -0500, Adam M wrote: Hi, I have compiled a list of packages in non-free that can be included in Amd64's non-free. A few days ago I have posted the entire list of good and bad packages on debian-devel[1]. They can also be found at, http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/ bad.txt - not distributable good.txt - distributable I think non-free is important to be part of Amd64 port for Sarge due to a few important packages like, like RFCs and the nvidia drivers. Now that I have reviewed these licenses, will Amd64 port carry non-free in Sarge? - Adam I just finished my own review of the non-free packages. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm not trying to tell you what to do, I just thought I'd give it a shot and have a look at the non-free licenses. Also, I'm by no means a lawyer, nor am I a DD - I'm just a layman. I've used the Packages list of a current i386 *sarge* box, and had invaluable help from http://nonfree.alioth.debian.org/. My criteria I didn't use nonfree.alioth.debian.org and I didn't use Packages. I used current Sources and read the dreaded debian/*copyright files from each of the source packages. It might have been better if you raised some questions about why I put something in good.txt and other stuff in bad.txt and then point to relevant sections of the licenses I looked at [1]. Trying to match the binary-source can be tricky. Anyway, I just want to look at the nvidia package where you said, Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files). Debian, and apparently Ubuntu, have special permission for distributing. The intent is probably only to deny OEMs to rebundle the stuff without nVidia's permission. What I think nVidia does is use the same license for distribution for Linux, Windows and Mac but they have an exception for Linux distributions that allow redistribution of their binary drivers. The binary drivers themselves are not permitted to be modified (how? with a hex editor? :). GPLed stuff of course can be modified. If nothing else, I think the nVidia drivers and the RFCs must be distributed by Amd64 for Sarge if the port is going to have some penetration into the destrop market. If there is no nvidia drivers, people will try to install them with the nvidia installer and butcher their installations. They will then complain that Amd64 Sarge is crap because they cannot even get their FX card to work! That's my 2 Canadian cents! - Adam [1] - all licenses I read are in http://people.debian.org/~adamm/non-free/licenses/
