Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 23:44 US/Eastern, Matthew Palmer wrote: Are you going to ask the same thing of non-free, too? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious). I think that's reasonable. Certainly I'd like to know the license of a non-free package before installing it.
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:07:28PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I think it is reasonable to require that installer packages inform the user they are about to install non-free software and give the user an opportunity to review the license of that software before proceeding, though. Are you going to ask the same thing of non-free, too? (I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious). - Matt
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Tore Anderson wrote: * Ola Lundqvist Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers. I disagree. If I have contrib in my sources.list file, and try to install a package from there, I expect only Free software to be installed on my system. That means I should get either: Contrib requires non-free stuff to work. You have to manually verify what that means in a per-package basis, just like in non-free you need to manually verify whatever you get in a per-package basis. You can dislike this however much you want, but there is nothing wrong with the installers. If you want to change contrib's charter, you will need to propose a GR. scripts, I get non-free software on my system from installing packages from the sections that should be DFSG-Free software only. The installer is DFSG-compliant software. What it did is not. This is allowed in contrib. If you would like to change things, please go ahead and propose a GR. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 07:13 US/Eastern, Tore Anderson wrote: I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered over main and contrib. Although the installer packages themselves certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated when I have main and contrib in my sources.list file, but after having completed the installation of a package from these sections, non-free software is installed on my system. We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our FTP archive for this software. The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, although it has been configured for use with Debian. Clearly, we have not violated the Social Contract: Contrib does not, per the social contract, need to follow the DFSG (policy imposes greater requirements, which is fine). If you tell the installer you don't want non-free software, it won't put contrib in your sources.list. I think it is reasonable to require that installer packages inform the user they are about to install non-free software and give the user an opportunity to review the license of that software before proceeding, though.
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
* Tore Anderson Although the installer packages themselves certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated when I have main and contrib in my sources.list file, but after having completed the installation of a package from these sections, non-free software is installed on my system. * Anthony DeRobertis Clearly, we have not violated the Social Contract: Contrib does not, per the social contract, need to follow the DFSG (policy imposes greater requirements, which is fine). Oh, er, yes. Policy is indeed what I was thinking about. I think it is reasonable to require that installer packages inform the user they are about to install non-free software and give the user an opportunity to review the license of that software before proceeding, though. At the very least. Well, anyway I see that most people seem to disagree that it's a dubious use of contrib, so I'll probably just forget about submitting any bugs on the installer packages. -- Tore Anderson
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
Hi On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:13:17PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free software and install it on a users' systems. I don't like the fact that these seem to be (randomly) scattered over main and contrib. Although the installer packages themselves certainly are Free, I feel the social contract is being violated when I have main and contrib in my sources.list file, but after having completed the installation of a package from these sections, non-free software is installed on my system. Here's a quick list of suspected packages: vtkdata-installer optional Installs example reference data. It could probably stay there. acl-installer contrib/devel acl-pro-installer contrib/devel atokx contrib/utils daemontools-installer contrib/misc djbdns-installercontrib/net f-prot-installercontrib/utils Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers. flashplugin-nonfree optional This is in contrib! hyperspec optional Also in contrib! ibm-jdk1.1-installercontrib/devel int-fiction-installer contrib/games lw-per-installercontrib/devel lw-pro-installercontrib/devel msttcorefonts contrib/graphics nvidia-kernel-src contrib/x11 nvidia-glx-src contrib/x11 qmailanalog-installer contrib/mail quake2-data contrib/games roxen-ssl contrib/web roxen2-ssl contrib/web sdic-edict contrib/text sdic-gene95 contrib/text setiathome contrib/misc Contrib is a ok place for installers. realplayer net I can not find this in the archives. I've not verified all of these being such installer packages for non-free software, nor do I claim it to be complete. Just to give you a rough idea. Also, they're of different nature -- some install the non-free software from their post-installation scripts, while others install a script in /usr/sbin/ which will do the installation of the non-free software when run. I'd like to submit bugs on these, asking them to move to non-free. So consider this email an invitation to discussion before a mass-bug filing. If the list agrees that bugs are warranted, which severity should I use? In my opinion it's a violation of the social contract and thus serious, but I've been recently told I should probably not use my own opinion as a justification for using the RC levels, so mayhaps wishlist would be better? I can not find any bugs in this list. So please do not fine anyone. The contrib section is precisely for free software that depends on non-free (or software outside the archives) to be able to work as expected. Regards, // Ola -- Tore Anderson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Ola Lundqvist --- / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37 \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 654 65 KARLSTAD | | +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 | | http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 | \ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 / ---
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
* Ola Lundqvist Contrib is a perfectly ok place for installers. I disagree. If I have contrib in my sources.list file, and try to install a package from there, I expect only Free software to be installed on my system. That means I should get either: 1) A fully-functional package, which might have been built with non-free tools, for instance OpenOffice, or 2) A package which does require me to install additional software to be of use, for instance UAE, or 3) A 'could not be installed' error from apt-get, which would suggest that the package placed a strict Depends on a package outside of main or contrib. In none of these cases I have gotten non-free software on my system. In the case of the installer packages, especially the ones which does the installation from their post-installation scripts, I get non-free software on my system from installing packages from the sections that should be DFSG-Free software only. flashplugin-nonfree optional This is in contrib! hyperspec optional Also in contrib! realplayer net I can not find this in the archives. Quite right, I've messed up these. Thanks for correcting me. -- Tore Anderson
Re: non-free installer packages in our supposedly Free sections.
Tore Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've noticed there's quite a few almost-empty packages lurking in the archive, whose sole purpose seems to be to download non-free software and install it on a users' systems. [...] realplayer net Iirc realplayer has been removed from the archive a long time ago. cu andreas
