Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Hello Antonio, Stefano, On Wed 15 Jul 2020 at 10:57AM -07, Stefano Rivera wrote: > I think your analysis is correct. The source is Apache-2.0 licensed, but > with a renaming requirement. There is a collaborative effort to maintain > a renamed source, cinc, which we've been shipping, but we haven't > followed through on a complete renaming. > > This is an RoM request, the maintainers have lost interest in working > with an upstream that imposes rules like this. Normally a maintainer losing interest in this way would mean orphaning, not removal, which makes things easier for someone who wants to pick it up. In this case, however, it seems the package would have to go through NEW anyway so that the packages could be renamed -- even if the arguments posted to the Ubuntu bug by Steve Langasek are valid, and we don't change binary paths, we would surely want to rename the source packages. So I'm going ahead with removal. This action by one member of the FTP Team should not be interpreted as any sort of Debian project opinion, or even FTP Team opinion, about the acceptability of the versions of the packages I'm removing. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Hi Sean (2020.07.11_14:53:31_-0700) > > However, Chef Inc. decided that Chef should no longer be free > > software/open source. I no longer intend to use or maintain Chef, and > > would like it to be removed from Debian. > > I'm a bit confused here. On the one hand you say that there's a > copyright issue, but reading the Ubuntu bug it seems that Ubuntu's > src:chef in fact contains cinc. I take it Debian's doesn't? In which > case the copyright issue would seem not to be a relevant reason for > removal? Chef is in sync between Debian and Ubuntu. The current source package contains cinc [0], but the packages are still contain the name chef. That is the core of the trademark issue Chef Inc has with Debian [1]. [0]: https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/c/chef/copyright-15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 [1]: https://bugs.debian.org/959981#5 > On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef > package because there are not going to be future upstream releases which > are free software. Could you provide me a reference, please? All I can > find online is that there is a new requirement to perform some renaming > in the contents of the package, not that new releases will be > DFSG-nonfree. I think your analysis is correct. The source is Apache-2.0 licensed, but with a renaming requirement. There is a collaborative effort to maintain a renamed source, cinc, which we've been shipping, but we haven't followed through on a complete renaming. This is an RoM request, the maintainers have lost interest in working with an upstream that imposes rules like this. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:49:25 -0700 Sean Whitton wrote: > DFSG#4 probably covers this case. ...if it were moved into non-free, since "Chef" currently fails DFSG #1, but even that's not an option if Debian can't distribute "Chef" in the first place, lest the project run afoul of the trademark policy. Adopting Cinc as a rebranded version of Chef would sidestep the entire matter: https://cinc.sh/ pgpYPkPdWTnJb.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Hello Jason, On Sat 11 Jul 2020 at 09:29PM -07, Jason Self wrote: > Sean Whitton asked: >> On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef >> package because there are not going to be future upstream releases >> which are free software. Could you provide me a reference, please? > > The problematic pieces appear to be contained within [0]. These two > points appear to eliminate freedom #2 [1] by making exact copies > impossible. DFSG#4 probably covers this case. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Sean Whitton asked: > On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef > package because there are not going to be future upstream releases > which are free software. Could you provide me a reference, please? The problematic pieces appear to be contained within [0]. These two points appear to eliminate freedom #2 [1] by making exact copies impossible. "You may redistribute the applicable Chef open source software under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license, but you may not use the Chef Marks in doing so without express written permission from Chef or as expressly permitted in this Policy." "We consider your compilation of our open source code into a distribution for use in your business to be your distribution, not Chef's distribution. Therefore, the resulting distribution must have enough of the Chef Marks removed from the source code so as to not confuse users as to the origin of the distribution." [0] https://www.chef.io/trademark-policy/ [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ pgpdaPWYdPjYd.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Hello again Antonio, On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:22AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > As per #959981, Chef packages in Debian have trademark issues > according to their upstream. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959981 > > The claims are questionable, are argued by Steve Langasek in a > corresponding Ubuntu bug. > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/chef/+bug/1877462 > > However, Chef Inc. decided that Chef should no longer be free > software/open source. I no longer intend to use or maintain Chef, and > would like it to be removed from Debian. I'm a bit confused here. On the one hand you say that there's a copyright issue, but reading the Ubuntu bug it seems that Ubuntu's src:chef in fact contains cinc. I take it Debian's doesn't? In which case the copyright issue would seem not to be a relevant reason for removal? On the other hand you say you think that we should remove the Chef package because there are not going to be future upstream releases which are free software. Could you provide me a reference, please? All I can find online is that there is a new requirement to perform some renaming in the contents of the package, not that new releases will be DFSG-nonfree. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Control: block -1 by 964889 964890 964891 964893 964894 On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:04:24AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote: > control: tag -1 +moreinfo > > Hello, > > On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:48AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > >> ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have > >> circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source > >> packages from unstable: > >> > >> - chef > >> - ohai > >> - ruby-knife-acl > > > > actually, please also remove chef-zero, ruby-cheffish, and > > ruby-compat-resource. they are all part of the chef ecosystem and are > > pointless without it. > > > > So the full list is: > > > > chef ohai ruby-knife-acl chef-zero ruby-cheffish ruby-compat-resource > > We need separate RM bugs for each of these, please. Done. > Please remove the moreinfo tag from this bug when there are no more > rdeps for chef itself. Note however that as I said before ohai and ruby-knife-acl have circular dependencies with chef so unless you are willing to leave broken dependencies in the archive you will have to remove them together with chef. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
control: tag -1 +moreinfo Hello, On Fri 26 Jun 2020 at 09:48AM -03, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: >> ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have >> circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source >> packages from unstable: >> >> - chef >> - ohai >> - ruby-knife-acl > > actually, please also remove chef-zero, ruby-cheffish, and > ruby-compat-resource. they are all part of the chef ecosystem and are > pointless without it. > > So the full list is: > > chef ohai ruby-knife-acl chef-zero ruby-cheffish ruby-compat-resource We need separate RM bugs for each of these, please. Please remove the moreinfo tag from this bug when there are no more rdeps for chef itself. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Hi Antonio (2020.06.26_12:22:09_+) > ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have > circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source > packages from unstable: > > - chef > - ohai > - ruby-knife-acl I'd add to that: - chef-zero (also contains the dubious Chef trademark) - ruby-cheffish (rev-dep of chef-zero) - ruby-compat-resource (rev-dep of ruby-cheffish) $ dak rm -Rn chef ohai ruby-knife-acl chef-zero ruby-cheffish ruby-compat-resource Will remove the following packages from unstable: chef | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | source, all chef-bin | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all chef-zero | 15.0.0-2 | source, all ohai | 16.0.7-3 | source, all ruby-chef-config | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-chef-utils | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-cheffish | 15.0.1-1 | source, all ruby-compat-resource | 12.10.5-1 | source, all ruby-knife-acl |1.0.6-1 | source, all Maintainer: Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers --- Reason --- -- Checking reverse dependencies... No dependency problem found. SR -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:22:09AM -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have > circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source > packages from unstable: > > - chef > - ohai > - ruby-knife-acl actually, please also remove chef-zero, ruby-cheffish, and ruby-compat-resource. they are all part of the chef ecosystem and are pointless without it. So the full list is: chef ohai ruby-knife-acl chef-zero ruby-cheffish ruby-compat-resource 8<8<8<- $ dak rm -Rn chef ohai ruby-knife-acl chef-zero ruby-cheffish ruby-compat-resource Will remove the following packages from unstable: chef | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | source, all chef-bin | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all chef-zero | 15.0.0-2 | source, all ohai | 16.0.7-3 | source, all ruby-chef-config | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-chef-utils | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-cheffish | 15.0.1-1 | source, all ruby-compat-resource | 12.10.5-1 | source, all ruby-knife-acl |1.0.6-1 | source, all Maintainer: Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers --- Reason --- -- Checking reverse dependencies... No dependency problem found. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#963750: RM: chef -- ROM; trademark issues
Package: ftp.debian.org Severity: normal As per #959981, Chef packages in Debian have trademark issues according to their upstream. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959981 The claims are questionable, are argued by Steve Langasek in a corresponding Ubuntu bug. https://bugs.launchpad.net/chef/+bug/1877462 However, Chef Inc. decided that Chef should no longer be free software/open source. I no longer intend to use or maintain Chef, and would like it to be removed from Debian. There is a "community fork" called Cinc (Cinc is not Chef). If someone feels like maintaining that in Debian they are free to do it. I however have no intention of doing so. dak says this: $ dak rm -Rn chef Will remove the following packages from unstable: chef | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | source, all chef-bin | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-chef-config | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all ruby-chef-utils | 15.8.25.3.gcf41df6a2-6 | all Maintainer: Debian Ruby Extras Maintainers --- Reason --- -- Checking reverse dependencies... # Broken Depends: ohai: ohai ruby-knife-acl: ruby-knife-acl # Broken Build-Depends: ohai: ruby-chef-config (>= 15) ruby-knife-acl and ohai are part of the Chef ecosystem, and both have circular dependencies with chef. So, please remove the following source packages from unstable: - chef - ohai - ruby-knife-acl signature.asc Description: PGP signature
