[Fink-devel] Fink gimp-2.0
Alexander, After clean-install of Panther (and updated to 10.3.8), I installed Fink and unstable version of gimp2 (2.0.0-5) via Fink. It compiled, but the first run says I have fontconfig 1.0.2 and need fontconfig 2.2.0 or higher. I checked fink list fontconfig and it replies fontconfig2-dev (2.2.0-3) is installed. Do you know if it is my problem (such as $PATH) or package problem? Thanks -- BABA Yoshihiko --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that may be affected. Thanks Lars. Here is a preliminary list. I have only had a chance to verify a few of these, so there are bound to be several false positives in here. unstable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett unstable/crypto - amule.info GPL ASARI Takashi aqbanking.info GPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci-qt-tools.infoGPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci.info GPL Peter O'Gorman bazaar-ssl.info GPL/GFDLLars Rosengreen ccvssh.info GPL David Bacher cfengine.info GPL Matthew Flanagan clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ejabberd.info GPL Daniel Henninger ekg-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed elinks-ssl.info GPL Daniel Macks ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel fwbuilder.info GPL Vadim Zaliva gftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao gwenhywfar.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman htmldoc-1.8.23-13.info GPL Thomas Kotzian htmldoc-nox-1.8.23-3.info GPL Thomas Kotzian irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn jpilot-ssl.info GPL None jwgc-ssl.info GPL Daniel Henninger kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdenetwork3.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnasl3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libnessus3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl.info GPL None msmtp.info GPL Darian Lanx mutt-ssl.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman proftpd.infoGPL Justin F. Hallett pyopenssl-py.info LGPLDaniel Henninger qca.infoLGPLBenjamin Reed samba-ldap.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn socat-ssl.info GPL Chris Dolan soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer sylpheed-ssl.info GPL None vtun.info GPL None wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn stable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett stable/crypto - clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dcgui-qt-ssl.info GPL Hanspeter Niederstrasser dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel gabber-ssl-0.8.7-22.infoGPL Max Horn gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl-2.8.4-23.info GPL Alexander Strange lynx-ssl.info GPL None mutt-ssl-1.4i-31.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman samba-ldap-2.2.8a-21.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn dclib0-ssl and valknut-ssl have modified their licenses to allow linking with openssl, but valknut also has a build dep on gt3-dev, which is gpl'd -- probably still not compatible I guess once we have this, for each package we'll need to: - Notify the upstream developers that they're sitting on a time bomb. :-) - Do one of the following, in order of preference: * Get permission from the upstream devel to link with OpenSSL * Link the package against OpenTLS * Link the package against the system OpenSSL (BuildConflict with Fink's version) * Remove the package from the bindist, possibly from unstable too. Any other options? To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or lgpl) in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then it should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless someone can establish that t
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
lftp doesn't link to ssl [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp === (lftp) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
Oops forgot to add the -ssl variant so you could see the diff [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp-ssl === (lftp-ssl) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, openssl097-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: On Mar 26, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: On Mar 16, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: Yes, I think we do. I'll try to construct a list of packages that may be affected. Thanks Lars. Here is a preliminary list. I have only had a chance to verify a few of these, so there are bound to be several false positives in here. unstable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett unstable/crypto - amule.info GPL ASARI Takashi aqbanking.info GPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci-qt-tools.infoGPL Peter O'Gorman aqhbci.info GPL Peter O'Gorman bazaar-ssl.info GPL/GFDLLars Rosengreen ccvssh.info GPL David Bacher cfengine.info GPL Matthew Flanagan clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ejabberd.info GPL Daniel Henninger ekg-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed elinks-ssl.info GPL Daniel Macks ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel fwbuilder.info GPL Vadim Zaliva gftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao gwenhywfar.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman htmldoc-1.8.23-13.info GPL Thomas Kotzian htmldoc-nox-1.8.23-3.info GPL Thomas Kotzian irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn jpilot-ssl.info GPL None jwgc-ssl.info GPL Daniel Henninger kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdenetwork3.infoGPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnasl3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libnessus3-ssl.info GPL Corey Halpin libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl.info GPL None msmtp.info GPL Darian Lanx mutt-ssl.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman proftpd.infoGPL Justin F. Hallett pyopenssl-py.info LGPLDaniel Henninger qca.infoLGPLBenjamin Reed samba-ldap.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn socat-ssl.info GPL Chris Dolan soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer sylpheed-ssl.info GPL None vtun.info GPL None wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn stable/main net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett stable/crypto - clamav.info GPL Remi Mommsen dcgui-qt-ssl.info GPL Hanspeter Niederstrasser dods.info GPL Jeffrey Whitaker ethereal-ssl.info GPL Max Horn fetchmail-ssl.info GPL Eric Knauel gabber-ssl-0.8.7-22.infoGPL Max Horn gnome-vfs-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone gnome-vfs2-ssl.info GPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team gnomemeeting.info GPL/LGPLShawn Hsiao irssi-ssl.info GPL Max Horn kdebase3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed kdelibs3-ssl.info GPL/LGPLBenjamin Reed lftp-ssl.info GPL Justin F. Hallett libnessus-ssl.info GPL None libsoup-ssl.infoGPL/LGPLThe Gnome Core Team links-ssl.info GPL Finlay Dobbie lynx-ssl-2.8.4-23.info GPL Alexander Strange lynx-ssl.info GPL None mutt-ssl-1.4i-31.info GPL Christian Swinehart neon23-ssl-0.23.9-11.info LGPLChristian Schaffner neon24-ssl.info LGPLChristian Schaffner openhbci.info LGPLPeter O'Gorman samba-ldap-2.2.8a-21.info GPL None samba.info GPL None sitecopy-ssl.info GPL Max Horn soup-ssl.info GPL/LGPLNone squid-ssl.info GPL Benjamin Reed stunnel4.info GPL Thomas Diemer wget-ssl.info GPL Sylvain Cuaz xchat-ssl.info GPL Max Horn dclib0-ssl and valknut-ssl have modified their licenses to allow linking with openssl, but valknut also has a build dep on gt3-dev, which is gpl'd -- probably still not compatible I guess once we have this, for each package we'll need to: - Notify the upstream developers that they're sitting on a time bomb. :-) - Do one of the following, in order of preference: * Get permission from the upstream devel to link with OpenSSL * Link the package against OpenTLS * Link the package ag
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:27 AM, TheSin wrote: lftp doesn't link to ssl Package: lftp Version: 3.1.1 Revision: 10 ### Depends: gettext, libiconv, readline5-shlibs, libncurses5-shlibs BuildDepends: gettext-dev, libiconv-dev, readline5, openssl097, libncurses5 I looked at the BuildDepends line. Also, I forgot to mention this is a list of .info files, _not_ packages. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp === (lftp) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.margay.org/~lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
ahh that shouldn't be that thanks. --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:58 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:27 AM, TheSin wrote: lftp doesn't link to ssl Package: lftp Version: 3.1.1 Revision: 10 ### Depends: gettext, libiconv, readline5-shlibs, libncurses5-shlibs BuildDepends: gettext-dev, libiconv-dev, readline5, openssl097, libncurses5 I looked at the BuildDepends line. Also, I forgot to mention this is a list of .info files, _not_ packages. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [~]$ deplist lftp === (lftp) === Depends: expat-shlibs, gettext, libiconv, libncurses5-shlibs, readline5-shlibs --- TS http://southofheaven.org/ Chaos is the beginning and end, try dealing with the rest. On 29-Mar-05, at 10:09 AM, Lars Rosengreen wrote: net/lftp.info GPL Justin F. Hallett --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.margay.org/~lars --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
Lars Rosengreen wrote: To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or lgpl) in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then it should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless someone can establish that the upstream authors permit linking against openssl. Only for GPL. There is absolutely no problem to distribute a LGPL-licensed package which is linked to OpenSSL. The LGPL is more like the X11-licende (aka modified BSD-license), which is also non-restrictive. If you read the FSF website, you will see a lot of push towards the GPL rather then the LGPL. That's pure politics. The GPL is actually very restrictive, and the FSF want it to be that way: they like that everything to use the GPL, in order to push free software, which can never be used in a commercial product. That other free licenses suffer from that is collateral damage to the FSF. Regards, Freek --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] Fink gimp-2.0
(BOn Mar 29, 2005, at 8:38 AM, $BH~I'(B $BGO>l(B wrote: (B (B> Alexander, (B> (B> After clean-install of Panther (and updated to 10.3.8), I installed (B> Fink and unstable version of gimp2 (2.0.0-5) via Fink. It compiled, (B> but the first run says I have fontconfig 1.0.2 and need fontconfig (B> 2.2.0 or higher. I checked fink list fontconfig and it replies (B> fontconfig2-dev (2.2.0-3) is installed. (B> (B> Do you know if it is my problem (such as $PATH) or package problem? (B> (B> Thanks (B> (B> -- (B> BABA Yoshihiko (B (BIt's related to the version of X11 installed. I'm working on it now (B(try what I just commited to experimental), but I still can't get it to (Bwork completely. If you try to use the text tool or script-fu, it will (Bcrash because it's linking to the wrong Pango. (B (B (B (B--- (BSF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide (BRead honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. (BDiscover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. (Bhttp://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click (B___ (BFink-devel mailing list (BFink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net (Bhttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] the gpl and openssl
On Mar 29, 2005, at 1:41 PM, Freek Dijkstra wrote: Lars Rosengreen wrote: To me the solution seems fairly simple: if a package has gpl (or lgpl) in its license field and has a builddep on fink's openssl, then it should no longer be included in the binary distribution, unless someone can establish that the upstream authors permit linking against openssl. Only for GPL. There is absolutely no problem to distribute a LGPL-licensed package which is linked to OpenSSL. I'm not sure that I agree. Section 3 of the LGPL allows you to convert a LGPL'd work to the full GPL. If you link against openssl, this is no longer possible because the aggregate is not compatible with the GPL due to the openssl advertising clause. Section 10 says "you may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." The LGPL is more like the X11-licende (aka modified BSD-license), which is also non-restrictive. If you read the FSF website, you will see a lot of push towards the GPL rather then the LGPL. That's pure politics. The GPL is actually very restrictive, and the FSF want it to be that way: they like that everything to use the GPL, in order to push free software, which can never be used in a commercial product. That other free licenses suffer from that is collateral damage to the FSF. I personally think the MIT/BSD/X11 licenses are a lot more permissive in what they allow than the LGPL is. When I first started writing open source software in the early 1980's, we all released our code into the public domain and didn't worry about all this license stuff. Sometimes I miss those days ;) -Lars Regards, Freek --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel -- Lars Rosengreen<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://www.margay.org/~lars smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
[Fink-devel] autoconf2.5 in 10.3 stable vs. autoconf2.5 in 10.3 unstable
Could the info file for autoconf2.5 in 10.3 unstable be put in 10.3 stable, so that they would be exactly the same? At the moment the checksum are different due to a -f option to rm lines: in unstable: rm -f %i/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf-mode.elc rm -f %i/share/emacs/site-lisp/autotest-mode.elc in stable: rm %i/share/emacs/site-lisp/autoconf-mode.elc rm %i/share/emacs/site-lisp/autotest-mode.elc Thanks in advance, Michèle PGP.sig Description: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ceci_est_une_signature_=E9lectronique_PGP?=
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
On Mar 29, 2005, at 11:30 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: The almanac, news broadcast, and encyclopedia all contain a substantial amount of creativity in the selection and presentation of those facts. That's why they are copyrightable. You are free to lift the facts out of any of those --- the facts themselves are not, and can not be protected under the copyright act. So, you are free to do whatever you like with the sunrise and sunset times in your almanac, or the birth and death dates of Thomas Jefferson in your encyclopedia, or the latest developments in the Schivo case given on the news report. So the issue is not whether facts can be copyrighted, but whether a .info file is a mere collection of facts. Some parts, yes, are facts: the name of the package, its dependencies, its home page. Others parts are not: the DescPort, for instance, or PatchScript. For this reason, one cannot say that the entire work is exempt from copyright law. In other words, I don't think a judge would accept an argument that goes, "Yes, I knew that parts of the work may have been covered by copyright law, but these other parts here, they are clearly factual. That means the whole thing is in the public domain." I think a much similar case to a Fink info file is a telephone book, which can not be copyrighted (see the Supreme Court's decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.[0]). I've created several .info files, and they are quite unlike a simple directory listing. There is a lot of originality that goes into deciding how the file gets packaged, how to work around autoconf quirks, what do to do when a Java package has no build script whatsoever, and so on. They are not simply collections of facts. Up through here, we have nothing creative at all: Everything is a fact, presented in a form mandated by Fink (the software) and Fink policy; if you took the raw facts out of this, gave them to a different person, and he created a new info file, he'd wind up with the same thing. In my experience, this is just not true. I recently collaborated with a Fink developer on a .info for which we had both already written .info files, separately, and wanted to combine our efforts. As it turned out, our .info files were quite different. He had created the SplitOffs and SSL handling in a way I never would have thought of, and I had added configure parameters that fixed bugs he was not able to resolve. Thus, our .info files were expressions of the unique decisions we made in how to compile the package. These decisions were not "raw facts". Now, it is true that two people working independently on a .info for the same package may very well end up with similar-looking .info files. By the same token, two programmers implementing a quicksort algorithm may end up with very similar code. But does this mean none of these works is protected by copyright law? DescDetail: << bzip2 is a portable, lossless data compressor based on the Burrows-Wheeler transform. It achieves good compression and runs on practically every (32/64-bit) platform in the known universe. << DescPort: << Doesn't use autoconf, but comes with a useful Makefile. Anyway, the patch modifies it to build a shared library instead of a static one. << This is the only part that could, I think, even concievably be copyrighted. However, I very much doubt it; it is a list of facts with very little creativity in them. Now hold on here... Does a metric of sufficient creativity truly exist? That is to say, "very little creativity" or "a lot of creativity" are so subjective, I don't see how they could be factors in deciding whether something is copyrightable. If "sufficiently creative" is indeed the guideline, then surely cover songs are no longer copyrightable. How much creativity could there be in copying another artist's rhythm, melody, style -- and even lyrics -- verbatim? And yet, covers certainly are protected by copyright law. Not only that, its fairly short. Again, I just don't buy the argument that length is a criterion in determining whether something is copyrightable. For example, here is a haiku I just wrote: Yesterday I went to the store and bought a glass of milk and drank it. Is this poem copyrightable? By your definition, no. It is very short. It is also factual. I did in fact buy milk at the store yesterday. (Okay, it was chocolate milk, but still...) Someone who went to the store yesterday and bought a glass of milk might come up with the exact same poem. Does that mean I am not allowed to declare copyright on the above work? IANAL, but I'm pretty sure the law says that the above haiku is Copyright (c) 2005 Trevor Harmon. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that this issue of .info copyrights is not as cut-and-dry as you make it out to be. I also fear that if we trivialize these licensing issues or make exceptions too easily, then others might feel free to do the same thing with the licensing of
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
Here's my take on this licensing issue, for what it's worth. I think we should explicitly indicate that authors of .info files are *contributing* those files to the fink project when they submit them for inclusion in the fink trees. As contributed parts of the whole, these files may be modified by others working on fink, and will be distributed along with fink and under the same license conditions as fink itself When I started the thread, though, I was trying to draw a distinction for the .patch files. I'd still like to see us make that distinction, because I would like everyone to feel free to borrow our patch files for their own use. In that spirit, it makes sense to me that we would say that the patch files inherited the same license their project was released under. As far as retroactively doing this, it seems pretty clear to me (after this discussion) that we cannot do so. So, if there is general agreement about how to proceed, we'll declare that all .info and .patch files submitted after a certain date will be subject to the above contribution and licensing conditions. I'm afraid we'll just have to leave the ambiguity in place concerning older contributions, because I can't see anyone finding the time to chase down permissions from authors. (And if you've got that much time, I've got some better projects for you to work on!) -- Dave --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
On Mar 29, 2005, at 5:27 PM, David R. Morrison wrote: As far as retroactively doing this, it seems pretty clear to me (after this discussion) that we cannot do so. So, if there is general agreement about how to proceed, we'll declare that all .info and .patch files submitted after a certain date will be subject to the above contribution and licensing conditions. Sounds like a good idea to me. Trevor --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] esound-0.2.35-8
Problem getting binary for esound via apt-get upgrade: Failed to fetch file:/sw/fink/dists/unstable/main/binary-darwin-powerpc//sound/ esound_0.2.35-8_darwin-powerpc.deb Size mismatch -- Package manager version: 0.24.2 Distribution version: 0.7.1.rsync Mac OS X version: 10.3.8 December 2001 Developer Tools gcc version: 3.3 make version: 3.79 --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] License for .info and .patch files
Trevor Harmon wrote: On Mar 28, 2005, at 2:23 AM, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: What about an almanac? A news broadcast? An encyclopedia? These are all mere collections of facts. Are you trying to tell me that these cannot be copyrighted? Copyright law in the US covers creative expression, not facts. The almanac, news broadcast, and encyclopedia all contain a substantial amount of creativity in the selection and presentation of those facts. That's why they are copyrightable. You are free to lift the facts out of any of those --- the facts themselves are not, and can not be protected under the copyright act. So, you are free to do whatever you like with the sunrise and sunset times in your almanac, or the birth and death dates of Thomas Jefferson in your encyclopedia, or the latest developments in the Schivo case given on the news report. I think a much similar case to a Fink info file is a telephone book, which can not be copyrighted (see the Supreme Court's decision in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.[0]). Take a look at the Fink info file of bzip2, for example. This is one I'd argue isn't copyrightable: Package: bzip2 Version: 1.0.2 Revision: 12 Essential: yes Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r) BuildDepends: fink (>= 0.13.0), fink-prebinding Maintainer: Fink Core Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Source: mirror:sourceforge:fink/%n-%v.tar.gz Source-MD5: ee76864958d568677f03db8afad92beb Patch: %n.patch CompileScript: make PREFIX=%p InstallScript: make install PREFIX=%i DocFiles: LICENSE README CHANGES manual*.html SplitOff: << Package: %N-shlibs Replaces: %N (<= 1.0.2-1) Depends: base-files Essential: true Files: lib/libbz2.*.dylib Shlibs: %p/lib/libbz2.1.dylib 1.0.1 %n (>= 1.0.2-2) Description: Shared libraries for bzip2 package DocFiles: LICENSE README CHANGES manual*.html << SplitOff2: << Package: %N-dev Depends: %N-shlibs (= %v-%r) Replaces: %N (<= 1.0.2-1) BuildDependsOnly: true Files: include lib/libbz2.dylib Description: Developer files for bzip2 package DocFiles: LICENSE README CHANGES manual*.html << Up through here, we have nothing creative at all: Everything is a fact, presented in a form mandated by Fink (the software) and Fink policy; if you took the raw facts out of this, gave them to a different person, and he created a new info file, he'd wind up with the same thing. Description: Block-sorting file compressor DescDetail: << bzip2 is a portable, lossless data compressor based on the Burrows-Wheeler transform. It achieves good compression and runs on practically every (32/64-bit) platform in the known universe. << DescPort: << Doesn't use autoconf, but comes with a useful Makefile. Anyway, the patch modifies it to build a shared library instead of a static one. << This is the only part that could, I think, even concievably be copyrighted. However, I very much doubt it; it is a list of facts with very little creativity in them. Not only that, its fairly short. If you tried to express the same facts, you'd likely wind up with the same thing. License: OSI-Approved Homepage: http://sources.redhat.com/bzip2/ More facts which are expressed in a form constrained entirly by Fink policy. The scripts, if of suffient length and creativity might be. (Ones that just invoke install probably aren't. Just another collection of facts.) The definition of copyright is not based on length nor creativity. Yes, it is. See above. [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/499_US_340.htm --- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click ___ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
