Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
On Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 08:24 AM, David R. Morrison wrote: rpl Sounds like we can distribute rpl as a binary. Besides the author of rpl is a fink user. :) ~ 153 % rpl -L rpl 1.4.0 by Joe Laffey, LAFFEY Computer Imaging. Visit http:// www.laffeycomputer.com/ for updates. This software is copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 by Joe Laffey. Permission is granted to any individual, institution, or company to use, copy, or redistribute rpl in source code or binary form so long as it is not modified in any way (beyond modifications required to compile or "package"), and it is not sold by itself for profit. Permission is also granted to bundle rpl in software distributions which are sold for a profit (e.g. CD-ROMs, etc.), as long as there are at least ten programs included in the distribution. If you modify the source code and would like to see your changes incorporated please submit your source code to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please report bugs to that address as well. rpl IS PROVIDED AS IS AND COMES WITH NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT WILL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE. --- This sf.net email is sponsored by: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility Learn to use your power at OSDN's High Performance Computing Channel http://hpc.devchannel.org/ ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 09:46, David R. Morrison wrote: > Hi Folks. > > I'd like to add to the Fink website a brief explanation that a small number > of the 0.5.0a-stable packages can not be distributed in binary form, and > that users who want them should consult the license first and then compile > them from source if they are eligible to do so. This would include a list > of the packages. > > Two questions: (1) how do they consult the license first? (2) where should > I put this so that people will find it at the appropriate moment? As to (2), maybe it would be worth inserting a new chapter on the FAQ for "Binary installation problems", probably before "compile problems, general". (It may not be a FAQ yet, but it will be). This would be good to have, anyway, because there's another question that comes up a lot: what to do when a binary installed package is missing a runtime dependency. (I'll add it at some point). > > (It's the response to the question "I tried to do a binary install of foo > but it says it is missing bar.") > > -- Dave > -- Alexander K. Hansen Associate Research Scientist, Columbia University visiting MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center Levitated Dipole Experiment 175 Albany Street, NW17-219 Cambridge, MA 02139-4213 --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
Just for reference: the current list of packages which are stable in 0.5.0a but not included in the binary distribution is: analog file freetype-hinting-bin freetype-hinting-shlibs freetype-hinting fvwm-icons host hx mpg123 pdflib pdflib-shlibs pine pine-ssl povray revtex rpl tetex-macosx tetex-texmf unrar xv If any maintainers of these packages would like to point out that the license permits binary distribution by Fink (even though it is "restrictive"), then please let me know. -- Dave --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 snip> In this regard, mpg123 is tagged as Restrictive (which it is) and so doesn't make it to the binary distribution whereas the License says : Here are some comments on this topic from our in house lawyer. The software may not be sold for profit or as "hidden" part of another software, This simply means, that you cannot offer a software called AB, distributing it as AB while a significant part of the AB software relies on functionality provided by mpg123. but it may be included with collections of other software, such as CD-ROM images of FTP servers and similar, Since "and similar" is a term which can be interpreted to be pretty much anything of a collection holding resources for a software repository I as a lawyer would see Fink to be covered by this sentence. provided that this software is not a significant part of that collection. Once more this plays back to the mentioning above. It simply means that the software collection you offer as AC may not rely on functions provided by mpg123 to ensure its functionality. Which is, as far as I understood, not the case. Precompiled binaries of this software may be distributed in the same way, provided that this copyright notice and license is included without modification. As long as the binary packages you are distributing hold a file which includes this text and this text-file is installed, there should be no legal issues concerning the redistribution if mp123 as a binary. Wouldn't we need an additional License for packages like this ? From a legal point of view, at least within Europe and Asia, no. - - I hope the above comments help - -d - - Face me and you shall surely perish. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE99hK7iW/Ta/pxHPQRA2h6AKCgqyu2/ZOGrANGRNUJVVI+mflbCACeNsTj oO1J6TzKRK8eKigOJQy4kOQ= =tUws -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
Le mardi, 10 déc 2002, à 16:14 Europe/Paris, David R. Morrison a écrit : One of the main themes of the Fink project is careful respect for the licenses which software developers include with their code. Most Fink packages are based on software with one of the "open source" licenses which explicitly allow distribution in binary form (sometimes with the requirement that the source code must also be distributed). A few other Fink packages don't have "open source" licenses, but still have licenses which explicitly allow us to distribution pre-compiled binaries. My message was about the remaining packages, in which the license may have some clause like "educational use only", and which don't explictly permit distribution of binaries (and may in fact forbid it). Those are packages which we do not distribute in binary form. In this regard, mpg123 is tagged as Restrictive (which it is) and so doesn't make it to the binary distribution whereas the License says : The software may not be sold for profit or as "hidden" part of another software, but it may be included with collections of other software, such as CD-ROM images of FTP servers and similar, provided that this software is not a significant part of that collection. Precompiled binaries of this software may be distributed in the same way, provided that this copyright notice and license is included without modification. Wouldn't we need an additional License for packages like this ? -- zauc --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
One of the main themes of the Fink project is careful respect for the licenses which software developers include with their code. Most Fink packages are based on software with one of the "open source" licenses which explicitly allow distribution in binary form (sometimes with the requirement that the source code must also be distributed). A few other Fink packages don't have "open source" licenses, but still have licenses which explicitly allow us to distribution pre-compiled binaries. My message was about the remaining packages, in which the license may have some clause like "educational use only", and which don't explictly permit distribution of binaries (and may in fact forbid it). Those are packages which we do not distribute in binary form. But this causes confusion for users sometimes, since we distibute other binaries which *depend* on these. In this regard, we are less consientious than the Debian project, which separates out not only "non-free" packages, but also separates out all packages which *depend* on non-free packages. -- Dave --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
Re: [Fink-devel] non-binary packages
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 On Dienstag, Dezember 10, 2002, at 03:46 Uhr, David R. Morrison wrote: Hi Folks. I'd like to add to the Fink website a brief explanation that a small number of the 0.5.0a-stable packages can not be distributed in binary form, and that users who want them should consult the license first and then compile them from source if they are eligible to do so. I do not quite grasp which packages cannot be distributed in binary form if those pieces of software are obviously only used for private use. I know that there are some very rare cases where you are not allowed to distribute binaries of cryptographic software, yet where does this apply to usual setups? This would include a list of the packages. I'd be more than interested in this. Two questions: (1) how do they consult the license first? Well, I guess this happens after the package has been downloaded? If so there should be a copy of the license present in their sources. If they cannot do that there is www.opensource.org which has mirrors in many countries and offers most open source licenses. If not, then simply refer to the vendors website, which should have a copy of the license publicly available. (2) where should I put this so that people will find it at the appropriate moment? To be honest for this special case the package database or wherever fink reads its info from should have a new flag, something like ConsultLicenseFirst: Yes. That would simply trigger a message ala: To use this package you need to compile it from source, Please review the license agreement at <%s> to check whether you are eligible to do so. Hope that helps - -d - - "Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing, - - Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream to dream before.." Edgar Allen Poe - The Raven -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQE99gJNiW/Ta/pxHPQRA2fFAJ44nbTWmoxvfgWAS+t5YzdZ94utfgCcDygn eN0j/sKGEKUfxlvHNejbM7E= =wF9/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
[Fink-devel] non-binary packages
Hi Folks. I'd like to add to the Fink website a brief explanation that a small number of the 0.5.0a-stable packages can not be distributed in binary form, and that users who want them should consult the license first and then compile them from source if they are eligible to do so. This would include a list of the packages. Two questions: (1) how do they consult the license first? (2) where should I put this so that people will find it at the appropriate moment? (It's the response to the question "I tried to do a binary install of foo but it says it is missing bar.") -- Dave --- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf ___ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
