Re: non-free software included in contrib
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
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
Re: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: non-free software included in contrib)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/office/ 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)
On Tue 16:34, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Supposedly, it already does: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/office/ 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)
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)
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
Re: non-free software included in contrib
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
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
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
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.
vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: non-free software included in contrib)
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: non-free software included in contrib
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
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: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: non-free software included in contrib)
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 kleptog@svana.org 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: non-free software included in contrib
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: vrms and contrib installers (was: Re: non-free software included in contrib)
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: non-free software included in contrib
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 english speaker: http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Re: non-free software included in contrib
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
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
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 http://people.debian.org/~kov Debian: http://www.debian.org * http://www.debian-br.org Dúvidas sobre o Debian? Visite o Rau-Tu: http://rautu.cipsga.org.br
Re: non-free software included in contrib
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
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
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
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
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
