Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Mathieu Roy]

Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> 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.


There is a difference between "software that depends on non-free
software to run" and "free installer of non-free software".

A software in contrib that have only the purpose of installing a
non-free software in is postinst script is, IMHO, maybe a good
candidate for non-free: it's not really a dependancy but a package
that include a non-free software -- even if the non-free software is
kept separated, outside the package.

A packaged installer is almost a subpackaging: we could include every
software in non-free in contrib, if we make free packages that download
from the net the non-free packages. So the distinction
non-free/contrib would be useless...

For instance, I make a package called satan-installer with a postinst
script that execute the following command:
http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/dists/potato/non-free/binary-i386/admin/satan_1.1.1-18.deb
 && dpkg -i satan_1.1.1-18.deb
would you like to include that satan-installer script in contrib?

It's almost how works flashplugin-nonfree.
http://packages.debian.org/testing/web/flashplugin-nonfree.html



So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.

Finally, someone who install the contrib flashplugin-nonfree get on
his computer a non-free software, possibly without even noticing it,
because he never seen a dependancy against a package in non-free. 





-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native engli

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Pierre Machard]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
[...]
> So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
> basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
> hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.

From the policy :

Examples of packages which would be included in contrib or
non-US/contrib are:

* free packages which require contrib, non-free packages or packages
which are not in our archive at all for compilation or execution, and

* wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
programs.

In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite
amazing since according to :

http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=yeupou%40gnu.org

You passed the Philosophy and Procedure. 

 
> Finally, someone who install the contrib flashplugin-nonfree get on
> his computer a non-free software, possibly without even noticing it,
> because he never seen a dependancy against a package in non-free. 


This is the aim of contrib. In that case do not add contrib in your 
sources.lists and apt-get install vrms !

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre Machard
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87



pgpi4diiESMqW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Peter Makholm]

Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite
> amazing since according to :
>
> http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=yeupou%40gnu.org
>
> You passed the Philosophy and Procedure. 

There are many developers not agreing completly with our current
policy. There is even a mailling list for those subversive people. It
is called debian-policy@lists.debian.org where they constantly discuss
changing of the policy.


Try look at the archive, quite amazing reading, don't you agree. Many
(now formely, I hope) respected developers has raised their voices at
that list.

-- 
 Peter Makholm |  I have no caps-lock but I must scream...
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Greg
 http://hacking.dk |  

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Gustavo Noronha Silva]

Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:

> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> [...]
> > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
> > basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
> > hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
> 
> From the policy :
[...]
> In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite
> amazing since according to :


While I agree with you that contrib is a good place for installers,
that is not a good reasoning. We did agree to respect the policy,
and to agree with it on our packaging work, but it does not mean
it is a holy book we cannot think about changing.

[]s!

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo Noronha 
Debian:   *  
Dúvidas sobre o Debian? Visite o Rau-Tu: http://rautu.cipsga.org.br

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Mathieu Roy]

Gustavo Noronha Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Em Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:48:46 +0200, Pierre Machard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> escreveu:
> 
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > [...]
> > > So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
> > > basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
> > > hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
> > 
> > From the policy :
> [...]
> > In other words you do not agree with the Debian policy. It's quite
> > amazing since according to :
> 
> While I agree with you that contrib is a good place for installers,
> that is not a good reasoning. We did agree to respect the policy,
> and to agree with it on our packaging work, but it does not mean
> it is a holy book we cannot think about changing.

Exactly.

I also contribute to a GNU project and follow every rules of GNU when
doing it. It does not mean that I agree with every words of RMS, it
just mean that I appreciate the GNU project a lot and when I
contribute to it, I accept the rules of the GNU project, even the
rules that I appreciate less.

The same goes for Debian. When doing something for Debian, I follow
the Debian policy. But I still keep my own judgment and keep the right
to express an opinion which may not be conform the policy.

I understand why these installers are in contrib (I said it in my
previous mail, basically they go in contrib as free software dependant
on non-free) according to the policy. If I was about to add such
package in Debian, I would add it, conform to the policy, in contrib.

But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the
result of the installation of these packages (and not their
dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads me to the
conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part is downloaded
at the same time than the debian package or not, this package itself
contains non-free stuff.


Regards,


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Bruce Sass]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
<...>
> But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
> packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
> even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the
> result of the installation of these packages (and not their
> dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads me to the
> conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part is downloaded
> at the same time than the debian package or not, this package itself
> contains non-free stuff.

When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case
could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
used to create non-free stuff.


- Bruce

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:47:11PM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> <...>
> > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since these
> > packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I think that
> > even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages themselves, the
> > result of the installation of these packages (and not their
> > dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads me to the
> > conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part is downloaded
> > at the same time than the debian package or not, this package itself
> > contains non-free stuff.
> 
> When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
> argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
> the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
> the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case
> could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
> used to create non-free stuff.

Ah, reductio ad absurdum.  Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
extreme to try and scare some people.

To address the original point, however:

I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance.  By
my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons:

1) They strictly depend on non-free software;

2) They build-depend on non-free software, but otherwise depend entirely on
free software; or

3) They install non-free software.

In each case, the actual contents of the package itself is DFSG-free.

Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
(OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI), all of
the software in contrib is there because correctly installing the binary
package will result in non-free software on your system, either because it
depends on it or because it will install it (as part of postinst or via an
install script).

The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system
(by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO.

- Matt

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Steve Langasek]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:

> To address the original point, however:

> I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance.  By
> my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons:

> 1) They strictly depend on non-free software;

> 2) They build-depend on non-free software, but otherwise depend entirely on
> free software; or

> 3) They install non-free software.

> In each case, the actual contents of the package itself is DFSG-free.

> Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
> (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI),

Still in contrib, last I knew.

> The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system
> (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO.

The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above,
you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own
and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it
depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third
case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free
software in question is non-free.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpM2AKNJ3kOJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Matthew Palmer]

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:45:37PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
> > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI),
> 
> Still in contrib, last I knew.

Whoops, it is too.  I thought I'd left contrib and non-free off the sources
list on this box.  Seems I didn't.  Bad assumption on my part for that one.

> > The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system
> > (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO.
> 
> The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above,
> you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own
> and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it
> depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third
> case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free
> software in question is non-free.

Indeed.  However, the point I was refuting was that installers shouldn't be
in contrib because they caused non-free software to appear on the user's
system.  I was merely pointing out that there is no substantive difference
in that point between non-free dependencies and installers.

Personally, I'd love it if installers could go away because the software
became DFSG-free and so could be packaged directly.  But, the unfortunate
reality is that it isn't at present, and installer packages are a reasonable
compromise between effectively telling our users "no, you can't manage that
software using dpkg" and compromising the DFSG.

I don't know if the presence of installers encourages or discourages the OSS
implementation of various pieces of non-free software.  I'm leaning towards
the not case, though.

- Matt

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Ah, reductio ad absurdum.  Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
> can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
> extreme to try and scare some people.

more accurately, it is a useful tool for highlighting the absurdity of a given
argument by pointing out the inevitable and logical conclusions of that
argument.

craig

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Cameron Patrick]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:

| > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
| > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
| > the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
| > the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case
| > could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
| > used to create non-free stuff.
| 
| Ah, reductio ad absurdum.  Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
| can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
| extreme to try and scare some people.

Don't attack reductio ad absurdum, attack the utter non-sequiturs in the
original post.  If a package's postinst or main goal is to fetch some
non-free piece of software, that is by no means the "probable or
possible" results of using the package, it is the only useful result of
using the package as it is intended to be used.  A piece of software
designed /only/ to fetch and install some non-free software is
significantly different to the case of e.g. an editor which can be used
to write non-free software or a generalised software installer (like
dpkg) which can potentially be used to install non-free software.

Cameron.

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Gunnar Wolf]

Mathieu Roy dijo [Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:40PM +0200]:
> So I do not agree that "Contrib is a ok place for installers". While
> basically these installer are free software, it's a little bit
> hypocritical to claim that these package contains free software.
> 
> Finally, someone who install the contrib flashplugin-nonfree get on
> his computer a non-free software, possibly without even noticing it,
> because he never seen a dependancy against a package in non-free. 

Not only that... This user in question might have chosen not to install
non-free software, by not listing non-free in his sources.list (I know
that listing contrib but not non-free will lead to broken packages,
but... A user might do it). He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!

Greetings,

-- 
Gunnar Wolf - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (+52-55)5630-9700 ext. 1366
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Sunday, Aug 31, 2003, at 14:47 US/Eastern, Bruce Sass wrote:
contrib would disappear and a case
could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
used to create non-free stuff.
That's silly. There is a difference between "package automatically 
brings in non-free stuff" and "package can be used to manually bring in 
non-free stuff"

Please, let's try to avoid absurd straw men arguments.

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Bruce Sass]

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
>
> | > When your conclusion is at odds with reality you should rethink your
> | > argument... if Debian was to start classifying packages based on
> | > the probable or possible results of using the package, instead of
> | > the code in the package itself, contrib would disappear and a case
> | > could be made to place all editors in non-free because they can be
> | > used to create non-free stuff.
> |
> | Ah, reductio ad absurdum.  Such a wonderful means of demonstrating that you
> | can't think up a decent argument, so you'll take something to it's illogical
> | extreme to try and scare some people.
>
> Don't attack reductio ad absurdum, attack the utter non-sequiturs in the
> original post.  If a package's postinst or main goal is to fetch some
> non-free piece of software, that is by no means the "probable or
> possible" results of using the package, it is the only useful result of
> using the package as it is intended to be used.  A piece of software
> designed /only/ to fetch and install some non-free software is
> significantly different to the case of e.g. an editor which can be used
> to write non-free software or a generalised software installer (like
> dpkg) which can potentially be used to install non-free software.

Exactly.  What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a
separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates),
then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a
scheme should not be necessary for free stuff)... imo, the installer
would go in main and the config/templates would go into contrib or
non-free.

Should installers be forced into non-free just because they haven't
progressed to the point of being generalised yet?


- Bruce

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Jamie Wilkinson]

This one time, at band camp, Bruce Sass wrote:
>Exactly.  What if a generalised DFSG-free software installer used a
>separate config file to download, debianize (using dh_make templates),
>then install the resulting package (most of it non-free because such a
>scheme should not be necessary for free stuff)... imo, the installer
>would go in main and the config/templates would go into contrib or
>non-free.

Wow, you just described my ideas for game-installer, a package that should
eventually replace quake2-data (among others), just as soon as I get some
more round tuits.

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://people.debian.org/~jaq

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Peter S Galbraith]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 09:47:46AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> 
> > To address the original point, however:
> 
> > I do believe that policy is correct in it's reasoning in this instance.  By
> > my understanding, packages go into contrib for one of three reasons:
> 
> > 1) They strictly depend on non-free software;
> 
> > 2) They build-depend on non-free software, but otherwise depend entirely on
> > free software; or
> 
> > 3) They install non-free software.
> 
> > In each case, the actual contents of the package itself is DFSG-free.
> 
> > Apart from item (2), which I can't think of a major example of at present
> > (OOo is in main because they just don't build the Java parts, AIUI),
> 
> Still in contrib, last I knew.
> 
> > The mechanism by which the non-free software will come to be on your system
> > (by hook or by crook, as it were) isn't a fundamental difference, IMO.
> 
> The fundamental difference is that, in your first two cases above,
> you're actually installing some free software that has value of its own
> and presumably would be moved to main if the non-free software it
> depended on was reimplemented or otherwise freed; whereas in the third
> case, the free software is only useful *so long as* the non-free
> software in question is non-free.

Just my 2 cents.  I completely agree with Steve.  If the only freeness
of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point to make
another installer, then that's pretty weak.  It's sole purpose is to
install something that isn't even free enough for `non-free', so why
should it be listed in the freer than non-free contrib?

Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of their
real state of freeness.

Peter

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
> these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
> think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages
> themselves, the result of the installation of these packages (and
> not their dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads
> me to the conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part
> is downloaded at the same time than the debian package or not, this
> package itself contains non-free stuff.

This is no different from any package in contrib that actually
 depends on non-free software. You seem to be implying that contrib is
 only supposed to be composed of software that may build depend on
 non-free packages, but may not depend on, or install, non-free
 packages.

That is not how contrib is defined, sorry.

manoj
-- 
Bolub's Fourth Law of Computerdom: Project teams detest weekly
progress reporting because it so vividly manifests their lack of
progress.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 21:23:09 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just my 2 cents.  I completely agree with Steve.  If the only
> freeness of an installer is being able to use it as a staring point
> to make another installer, then that's pretty weak.  It's sole
> purpose is to install something that isn't even free enough for
> `non-free', so why should it be listed in the freer than non-free
> contrib?

> Moving such packages to non-free would be more representative of
> their real state of freeness.

While I reject the argument hat installer packages ought to
 move to non-free since they cause non-free software to appear on the
 system (there are non-installer packages that also do that if they
 depend on non-0free packages), I do find this line of reasoning
 persuasive.

manoj

-- 
Depart in pieces, i.e., split.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: "non-free" software included in contrib

[Joe Wreschnig]

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 23:40, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2003 17:51:42 +0200, Mathieu Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
> 
> > But now we're discussing about it and I express my opinion: since
> > these packages in their postinst script install non-free stuff, I
> > think that even if there's no non-free stuff within the packages
> > themselves, the result of the installation of these packages (and
> > not their dependancies!) is to get non-free stuff. And so, it leads
> > me to the conclusion that, whatever the fact that the non-free part
> > is downloaded at the same time than the debian package or not, this
> > package itself contains non-free stuff.
> 
>   This is no different from any package in contrib that actually
>  depends on non-free software. You seem to be implying that contrib is
>  only supposed to be composed of software that may build depend on
>  non-free packages, but may not depend on, or install, non-free
>  packages.

Really? I read it as a request to be honest about the program's
intentions. When you install a program from contrib that depends on
something in non-free, you're clearly installing something in non-free
(vrms will recognize it, dselect will say that it's non-free, and so
on), in addition to the thing in contrib. Also, the thing in contrib is
suppossedly a useful piece of almost-free software, that happens to use
a non-free toolkit, compression library, or whatever. You may be
installing it to rewrite that part, for example.

The installer packages aren't recognized as non-free by vrms or dselect,
and I would question the copyrightability of the installer (is a
wget/dpkg line copyrightable? I doubt it). Furthermore, the installer is
totally useless for doing anything but writing another non-free
installer, since it's so trivial. There is no reason to install the
installer unless you plan to install and use the non-free software.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
He might even be running vrms - and vrms
will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
software, then vrms could look at that.

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 
> On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> 
> >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> 
> Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> software, then vrms could look at that.

Random package:
Provides: non-free-installer

vrms:
Conflicts: non-free-installer

Done.
-- 
Martijn van Oosterhout  http://svana.org/kleptog/
> "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good
> men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke
> "The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be
> governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato


pgps6TPlnLGOB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 20:27 US/Eastern, Martijn van Oosterhout 
wrote:

Random package:
Provides: non-free-installer
vrms:
Conflicts: non-free-installer
No, because that's not how vrms works. vrms just mails you (once a 
month, I believe) which non-free packages are installed. It also 
informs you when you run it from the command line.

It doesn't conflict with non-free packages.

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > 
> > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > 
> > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > software, then vrms could look at that.
> 
> Random package:
> Provides: non-free-installer
> 
> vrms:
> Conflicts: non-free-installer
> 
> Done.

won't work:

you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
vrms again.

you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
is not telling you about it.

-john

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

"John H. Robinson, IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 02:00:58PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > > On Monday, Sep 1, 2003, at 12:38 US/Eastern, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > 
> > > >He might even be running vrms - and vrms
> > > >will not complain about the non-free software he has installed!
> > > 
> > > Then file a bug report (on vrms). Perhaps it'd even be useful if 
> > > installer packages somehow marked that they've installed non-free 
> > > software, then vrms could look at that.
> > 
> > Random package:
> > Provides: non-free-installer
> > 
> > vrms:
> > Conflicts: non-free-installer
> > 
> > Done.
> 
> won't work:
> 
> you install the installer, vrms gets removed. you run the installer, and
> then dpkg -i the resultant .deb. you --purge the installer, and install
> vrms again.
> 
> you now have a non free package _and_ vrms installed, and vrms _still_
> is not telling you about it.

That's lead me to this conclusion: these installers's debian packages
in contrib install packages on Debian systems without using the true
debian software management tool (dpkg). 

So these non-free softwares installed get ignored by vrms... In fact,
these installers should build a debian package for the non-free
software they install, to keep the debian installation clean. It would
be easier to track down their installation, to remove them, to upgrade
them.

But it will be also makes more obvious the complicated justification
of their presence inside contrib... 

Maybe we should reconsider these packages and think them as package
builder for non-free software instead of installers (if they follow
the idea of building a debian package of the software they
download)... because there is already an installer in Debian
(dpkg). But in fact, there is also already a package builder in
Debian...  

So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
"installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.






-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Wouter Verhelst]

Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
to be allowed to redistribute it.

In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.


signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:

[snip]

> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

Yes, some (a lot of) non-free, but gratis, software do not allow
redistribution, or imposes limits on the redistribution such that it
cannot be packaged even for non-free.


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander  (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/(/   Full colour fire   (/

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Colin Watson]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.

The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
constructed from them).

-- 
Colin Watson  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté :

> Op di 02-09-2003, om 17:46 schreef Mathieu Roy:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> There's one single requirement for software to go in non-free: we have
> to be allowed to redistribute it.
> 
> In some cases, the license prohibits the act of redistribution -- even
> if the software itself can be downloaded gratis from the author's
> website. That's when installer packages get written :-)

And so we have some almost meta-package in contrib, called
installers, that install software that do not even fit for
non-free. It's a strange workaround, to use contrib to provide
packages that we cannot even provide in non-free. 

I'm puzzled. At first, I was thinking it was some kind of workaround
to avoid entering non-free but, in fact, it would be a workaround for
to enter debian for packages that would not be allowed at all in any
other case -- which is in fact more sensible, easier to understand. 

Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 
Someone may say that are included in Debian only software estimated
needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.

That's ok if we stick to the policy. But I'm not sure it was the
spirit of the policy to allows that. And I think more important to
try to stick to the spirit of the policy than to it's letter. Because
changing its letter is always an option while changing its spirit is,
I'm sure you'll agree, definitely not an option.

I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
software, when installing it. Some packages clearly identified that
vrms can clearly identify, some package we can easily track and remove
completely at will. So people would know what they exactly have on 
their computer. And I think that was the main point of the person who
started the thread, the ability for the user to track this non-free
software he got.

So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
software they install.

What do you think?


-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[John H. Robinson, IV]

I don't need to be CC:'d, thanks.

Mathieu Roy wrote:
> 
> Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
> have a free software in contrib that will install it, without the
> possibility to remove it with the standard debian tools. 

my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
installers made for pine and djbware.

they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
it elsewhere, too.

this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

> I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> software, when installing it.

the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
of them, though.

> Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> package we can easily track and remove completely at will.

IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
not notice it.

> So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> software they install.
> 
> What do you think?

i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

-john

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Joey Hess]

John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.

Strictly speaking those are not installers. The source is available in
the debian archive, we just can't distribute compiled binaries from it.

Installers for gratis, non-free binaries much more often take the form
of the old realplayer installer: Download the binary and drop it
somewhere, possibly deal with upgrades to the binary, and when removed,
delete the binary.

-- 
see shy jo


pgpQaSpc2ZhYJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Mathieu Roy]

> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.
> 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

If they all works this way, there no big bug, they just have make sure
the packages will be correctly listed as non-free.

I checked at least flashplayer-nonfree and it does not seem to build
any debian package at all. In fact, you have a ruby script that do
what dpkg and apt-get would be doing if flashplayer was debian
package. 




-- 
Mathieu Roy
 
  Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
  Not a native english speaker: 
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 13:54 US/Eastern, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Basically, if Microsoft Office someday works for GNU/Linux, we may
Supposedly, it already does:

needed by users. But I'm sure we can found 3000 companies that
would switch over GNU/Linux if Microsoft Office was available.
... start looking.

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Josh Lauricha]

On Tue  16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> Supposedly, it already does:
>   

Actually, my boss just installed that the other day and it apparently
does work well. How much of it is just WINE is a pretty wrapper, I'm not
to certain.

-- 


| Josh Lauricha|
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
| Bioinformatics, UCR  |
|--|

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Brian May]

On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 04:56:51PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 05:46:58PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > So, is there any obvious reason why some proprietary software get a
> > "installer" package in contrib instead of a debian package in
> > non-free? For instance, why the non-free flashplayer does not get a
> > true debian package in non-free, to benefit truly of the debian tools.
> 
> The usual reasons are that they don't allow sufficient redistribution
> for us to include them in the Debian archive at all, or that they don't
> allow distribution of modified versions (including Debian packages
> constructed from them).

An installer package could create a Debian package "on the fly"...

I don't think this would break any licenses.

It would also allow vrms to detect it as non-free software.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: "non-free" software included in contrib)

[Peter S Galbraith]

John H. Robinson, IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> my experience with the installer .deb's is limited mostly to the
> installers made for pine and djbware.
> 
> they download the source, patch the source, then build the source. the
> result is a .deb. that .deb can then be installed. since it is a .deb
> installed by dpkg, it is under dpkg control and can be removed at any
> time. the additional benefit is that you can take that .deb and install
> it elsewhere, too.
> 
> this works for things like pine and djbware, since the source code is
> available. for things like flash or MS Office, source would not be
> available. the installer making a .deb out of a binary distribution may
> be harder, but i feel that it is certainly possible.

It's in fact easier.  Just `mv' the binary to debian/tmp/usr/bin.
XForms use to be like this.
 
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
>
> > I think that, at least, these installer, to be included in debian,
> > should be forced to build a real debian package for this non-free
> > software, when installing it.

That's a good idea!
 
> the ones that i am familir with do exactly that. i cannot speak for all
> of them, though.

Most don't.

> > Some packages clearly identified that vrms can clearly identify, some
> > package we can easily track and remove completely at will.
> 
> IIRC, the qmail.deb is placed into section Local, which is why VRMS does
> not notice it.
> 
> > So I think it would be appropriate to fill a bug for any of these
> > installers, asking them to build a correct debian package for the
> > software they install.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> i would not mind if the installer's built .deb were listed as section
> non-free, so vrms could pick it up.

wishlist bug, but yes it's a good idea.  It could become policy when
enough of then do it.

Peter