RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
I would be nice if pressure could be put on IBM to "walk the walk".
Peace, Love and Linux? yeah right.
IBM needs to release these as source... I don't know what would
need to happen to convince them that this would be a good thing.
I suspect most of the community doesn't know that IBM has these closed
drivers.
Perhaps someone could write an insightful article about it and post
it online somewhere for the LinuxToday/Slashdot/Newsforge types to
pick up.
-Original Message-
From: Jochen Röhrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:42 PM
To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
Cc: debian-s390@lists.debian.org
Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
Hi,
I would like to package three network device drivers for IBM S/390 (see
ITPs #108709, #108710, #108711).
The device drivers are provided by IBM as OCO (object code only) modules
(i.e. there are no sources available) and they are released under a
special IBM "International License Agreement for Non-Warranted Programs"
(to see the license agreement click on one of the
"{lcs,qdio,qeth}-2.4.5-s390-2.tar.gz" hyperlinks on
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/download_obj.
html+).
This raises a few questions:
- Does the license allow distribution of the oco-drivers with Debian?
From item 1. of the license agreement I derive that this is possible
as long as
a) Debian assures that the license agreement is distributed with the
oco-driver and
b) that the user explicitely agrees with the terms of the license
(actually the user can not download the oco-drivers from the
IBM web site without explicitely accepting the agreement).
I think a) is definitely not a problem and b) could be realized by
asking the user before installing the oco-driver whether (s)he agrees
with the license (could probably be done in the preinstall-script?).
- Are there any pitfalls in the license agreement I may have overseen?
- Can the oco-drivers go into non-free?
Since there is no source code available, the oco-drivers are not DFSG
compliant and therefore could not go into "main" or "contrib". So,
from the Debian POV, is it acceptable to put them into non-free?
Citing from a footnote in the Debian Policy Manual (version 3.5.5.0,
2001-06-01, section "2.1.4 The non-free section"):
"It is possible that there are policy requirements which the
package is unable to meet, for example, if the source is
unavailable. These situations will need to be handled on a
case-by-case basis."
Who finally decides whether such a package can go into non-free? What
would be the alternative, if the package could not go into non-free
(i.e. not be part of the distribution at all)?
Since the oco-drivers are needed on S/390 to establish direct
external network connections they play an essential role in making
Debian usable on S/390. If we could not integrate them into the
distribution, this would be a major problem. We could, e.g., not
provide an official Debian install-ramdisk (that would have to go
into non-free as well) that supports installation via one of the
devices driven by the oco-drivers...
Awaiting your comments!
Jochen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:43:27AM -0700, Josh M. McKee wrote: > > How is this related to Debian security? It's been a long day ... I am really sorry! This one should go to debian-legal ... > > Josh > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:42 AM > > To: debian-security@lists.debian.org > > Cc: debian-s390@lists.debian.org > > Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules > > ...
RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
How is this related to Debian security?
Josh
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:42 AM
> To: debian-security@lists.debian.org
> Cc: debian-s390@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to package three network device drivers for IBM S/390 (see
> ITPs #108709, #108710, #108711).
>
> The device drivers are provided by IBM as OCO (object code only) modules
> (i.e. there are no sources available) and they are released under a
> special IBM "International License Agreement for Non-Warranted Programs"
> (to see the license agreement click on one of the
> "{lcs,qdio,qeth}-2.4.5-s390-2.tar.gz" hyperlinks on
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/dow
> nload_obj.html+).
>
> This raises a few questions:
>
> - Does the license allow distribution of the oco-drivers with Debian?
>
>From item 1. of the license agreement I derive that this is possible
>as long as
>
>a) Debian assures that the license agreement is distributed with the
> oco-driver and
>
>b) that the user explicitely agrees with the terms of the license
> (actually the user can not download the oco-drivers from the
> IBM web site without explicitely accepting the agreement).
>
>I think a) is definitely not a problem and b) could be realized by
>asking the user before installing the oco-driver whether (s)he agrees
>with the license (could probably be done in the preinstall-script?).
>
> - Are there any pitfalls in the license agreement I may have overseen?
>
> - Can the oco-drivers go into non-free?
>
>Since there is no source code available, the oco-drivers are not DFSG
>compliant and therefore could not go into "main" or "contrib". So,
>from the Debian POV, is it acceptable to put them into non-free?
>Citing from a footnote in the Debian Policy Manual (version 3.5.5.0,
>2001-06-01, section "2.1.4 The non-free section"):
>
> "It is possible that there are policy requirements which the
> package is unable to meet, for example, if the source is
> unavailable. These situations will need to be handled on a
> case-by-case basis."
>
>Who finally decides whether such a package can go into non-free? What
>would be the alternative, if the package could not go into non-free
>(i.e. not be part of the distribution at all)?
>
>Since the oco-drivers are needed on S/390 to establish direct
>external network connections they play an essential role in making
>Debian usable on S/390. If we could not integrate them into the
>distribution, this would be a major problem. We could, e.g., not
>provide an official Debian install-ramdisk (that would have to go
>into non-free as well) that supports installation via one of the
>devices driven by the oco-drivers...
>
> Awaiting your comments!
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
I would be nice if pressure could be put on IBM to "walk the walk".
Peace, Love and Linux? yeah right.
IBM needs to release these as source... I don't know what would
need to happen to convince them that this would be a good thing.
I suspect most of the community doesn't know that IBM has these closed
drivers.
Perhaps someone could write an insightful article about it and post
it online somewhere for the LinuxToday/Slashdot/Newsforge types to
pick up.
-Original Message-
From: Jochen Röhrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 12:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
Hi,
I would like to package three network device drivers for IBM S/390 (see
ITPs #108709, #108710, #108711).
The device drivers are provided by IBM as OCO (object code only) modules
(i.e. there are no sources available) and they are released under a
special IBM "International License Agreement for Non-Warranted Programs"
(to see the license agreement click on one of the
"{lcs,qdio,qeth}-2.4.5-s390-2.tar.gz" hyperlinks on
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/download_obj.
html+).
This raises a few questions:
- Does the license allow distribution of the oco-drivers with Debian?
From item 1. of the license agreement I derive that this is possible
as long as
a) Debian assures that the license agreement is distributed with the
oco-driver and
b) that the user explicitely agrees with the terms of the license
(actually the user can not download the oco-drivers from the
IBM web site without explicitely accepting the agreement).
I think a) is definitely not a problem and b) could be realized by
asking the user before installing the oco-driver whether (s)he agrees
with the license (could probably be done in the preinstall-script?).
- Are there any pitfalls in the license agreement I may have overseen?
- Can the oco-drivers go into non-free?
Since there is no source code available, the oco-drivers are not DFSG
compliant and therefore could not go into "main" or "contrib". So,
from the Debian POV, is it acceptable to put them into non-free?
Citing from a footnote in the Debian Policy Manual (version 3.5.5.0,
2001-06-01, section "2.1.4 The non-free section"):
"It is possible that there are policy requirements which the
package is unable to meet, for example, if the source is
unavailable. These situations will need to be handled on a
case-by-case basis."
Who finally decides whether such a package can go into non-free? What
would be the alternative, if the package could not go into non-free
(i.e. not be part of the distribution at all)?
Since the oco-drivers are needed on S/390 to establish direct
external network connections they play an essential role in making
Debian usable on S/390. If we could not integrate them into the
distribution, this would be a major problem. We could, e.g., not
provide an official Debian install-ramdisk (that would have to go
into non-free as well) that supports installation via one of the
devices driven by the oco-drivers...
Awaiting your comments!
Jochen
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:43:27AM -0700, Josh M. McKee wrote: > > How is this related to Debian security? It's been a long day ... I am really sorry! This one should go to debian-legal ... > > Josh > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:42 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules > > ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
How is this related to Debian security?
Josh
> -Original Message-
> From: Jochen Rohrig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2001 10:42 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Questions concerning S/390 OCO-modules
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I would like to package three network device drivers for IBM S/390 (see
> ITPs #108709, #108710, #108711).
>
> The device drivers are provided by IBM as OCO (object code only) modules
> (i.e. there are no sources available) and they are released under a
> special IBM "International License Agreement for Non-Warranted Programs"
> (to see the license agreement click on one of the
> "{lcs,qdio,qeth}-2.4.5-s390-2.tar.gz" hyperlinks on
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/linux390/dow
> nload_obj.html+).
>
> This raises a few questions:
>
> - Does the license allow distribution of the oco-drivers with Debian?
>
>From item 1. of the license agreement I derive that this is possible
>as long as
>
>a) Debian assures that the license agreement is distributed with the
> oco-driver and
>
>b) that the user explicitely agrees with the terms of the license
> (actually the user can not download the oco-drivers from the
> IBM web site without explicitely accepting the agreement).
>
>I think a) is definitely not a problem and b) could be realized by
>asking the user before installing the oco-driver whether (s)he agrees
>with the license (could probably be done in the preinstall-script?).
>
> - Are there any pitfalls in the license agreement I may have overseen?
>
> - Can the oco-drivers go into non-free?
>
>Since there is no source code available, the oco-drivers are not DFSG
>compliant and therefore could not go into "main" or "contrib". So,
>from the Debian POV, is it acceptable to put them into non-free?
>Citing from a footnote in the Debian Policy Manual (version 3.5.5.0,
>2001-06-01, section "2.1.4 The non-free section"):
>
> "It is possible that there are policy requirements which the
> package is unable to meet, for example, if the source is
> unavailable. These situations will need to be handled on a
> case-by-case basis."
>
>Who finally decides whether such a package can go into non-free? What
>would be the alternative, if the package could not go into non-free
>(i.e. not be part of the distribution at all)?
>
>Since the oco-drivers are needed on S/390 to establish direct
>external network connections they play an essential role in making
>Debian usable on S/390. If we could not integrate them into the
>distribution, this would be a major problem. We could, e.g., not
>provide an official Debian install-ramdisk (that would have to go
>into non-free as well) that supports installation via one of the
>devices driven by the oco-drivers...
>
> Awaiting your comments!
>
> Jochen
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
