Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Blender, SuperTuxKart and The Battle for Wesnoth.
Isaac David transcribed 0.7K bytes: > Adonay Felipe Nogueira : > > Besides, from the second quote from the GNU FSDG, the new licensing > > rules in Battle for Wesnoth's add-ons repository would allow licenses > > that forbid sharing and selling original copies. > > let's sidetrack campaign logic for a moment and focus on > incontrovertibly non-fuctional add-ons whose license forbids > commercial distribution... > > if they aren't part of the distribution and the program simply > recommends them, do they violate the GNU FSDG? the provision for > nonfree recommendations does not say a thing about non-functional > stuff: > > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#documentation > > -- > Isaac David > GPG: 38D33EF29A7691134357648733466E12EC7BA943 They seem to be fun to deal with. Not. https://github.com/wesnoth/wesnoth/issues/1897 -- ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser
Jason Self transcribed 0.4K bytes: > Oh, and we also have similar efforts with things like GNU IceCat and > Trisquel's Abrowser. It probably makes more sense to work together and > not fragment efforts by starting yet another modified version of a > Firefox-based browser. I think there's a misunderstanding. I'm only looking into making a package (as in: for operating systems, from the perspective of a packager) with a minimal changes (could be regarded as "patches") and adjusted settings so that this software maybe is acceptable for us GNU systems. I'm not looking into starting another project, I have more than I should do already going on. And Palemoon used to be firefox based, but it has since then diverged and developed its own engine etc. This is why I was looking into it, and curiosity. I already have a working "New Moon" (Pale Moon branded 'unofficial') build. -- ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[GNU-linux-libre] palemoon browser
Hi, has someone looked into Pale Moon browser before? I have a first functional package definition for Guix, but it has obvious issues with trademarks or at least their distribution guidelines. The website is behind Cloudflare, so I have to link to an archived page instead: https://web.archive.org/web/20161116213017/https://www.palemoon.org/licensing.shtml These are their redistribution guidelines: https://web.archive.org/web/20170619230207/http://www.palemoon.org:80/redist.shtml We have the option to build from source, so we could skip the binary distribution part and their really unfortunate guidelines. However this https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2660 seems to indicate that it would be just fine with official branding disabled. But mostly I'm interested in the thought experiment of what could be altered to make it compatible to the GNU FSDG at runtime. The most obvious part is: their default homepage of the web browser includes cookies and links to various SaaS such as Faceboogle (they are using the service "start.me"). They exclude Google from the default search engines and default to Duckduckgo. You can't use the mozilla addon store with it unless you point it to it directly (not via browser internals), but they link to it in the "about:addons" page as a choice between "Pale Moon Addons Site" and "Mozilla Addons Site". Both open as websites, not in-browser mode. Mozilla could be patched away. Somewhere I had more information but it wasn't organized on paper or in a git and got lost. Codecs could be another problem as far as I can guess. Anything I've missed? -- ng0 GnuPG: A88C8ADD129828D7EAC02E52E22F9BBFEE348588 GnuPG: https://n0is.noblogs.org/my-keys https://www.infotropique.org https://krosos.org signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] porting torbrowser, fsdg questions
Luke transcribed 5.0K bytes: > On 03/31/2017 02:34 PM, ng0 wrote: > > ng0 transcribed 1.3K bytes: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I have the intention to package torbrowser for Guix, a project I > >> contribute to. > >> I have started to communicate about this with torproject and some other > >> projects. In obvious licenses it is okay. What is not clear to me, are > >> the parts which were changed for example in icecat compared to firefox. > >> > >> Depending on what needs to be removed, we could still use the torbrowser > >> theme and everything connected to it[0]. I just have no idea where to start > >> sorting out items which might conflict with > >> https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html > >> > >> The obvious thing is, we do not want to encourage the use of the Mozilla > >> Addon Service (or anything *.mozilla.org). Actually we can move all the > >> applicable, fitting addons into Guix packages, at least someone > >> started working on this for the Guix packaged icecat. > >> What else? If Torproject allows us to use their trademarks, > >> firefox/mozilla trademarks are still off the table, that's clear. > >> > >> What I do not need help with or advice on are issues with the actual > >> packaging > >> process or issues beyond the application etc, that's up to myself, > >> torproject, and I know what issues can arise and need to be investigated > >> or pointed out (for example that it's not an official build but an > >> replica of what torbrowser developers do). > >> > >> 0: That's why I'm asking you, so that I can continue communicating about > >> this with torproject. > >> > >> > >> > > Alright, I've taken a look at torbrowser 6.5.1 now (previously all I did > > was building it, I stopped using it a while ago) > > > > > > The about dialogue is torproject and only gives respect to Mozilla in > > one line, namely the version: > > "6.5.1 (based on Mozilla Firefox 45.8.0)" > > > > is this okay? is this problematic? I don't know. Names are names, and I > > don't think we can get in trouble (if torproject allows the branding to > > be used) for using a branding where a reference to Mozilla Firefox is > > kept. > > > > Moving on: > > > > The obvious parts in Preferences are: > > The Addon Store accesses Mozilla (which promotes non-free addons, extensions > > etc). Trivial to change thanks to icecat. > > Firefox "Sync" is enabled (surprising to me), can be disabled again > > thanks to icecat. > > "Search" lists Google, should probably-maybe be removed. > > > > Next real question I have is about "about:license". > > I think if this is relevant from our perspective, and the only mistake > > were that Torproject torbrowser developers did not add their pieces of > > tor and other included software in there, this can be talked about with > > them. But to do so, I would need a second pair of eyes to go over it and > > tell me wether this can cause problems when you work under the FSDG or > > not. > > > > Thanks, > > ng0 > > > > > I don't see where they have removed DRM. We have to do it in order to > meet FSDG compliance for Parabola.[1][2] > > This appears to be enabled in recent versions of TBB.[3] > > > Luke > Parabola GNU/Linux-libre Packager > https://parabola.nu > > 1. https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/iceweasel/vendor.js#n23 > > 2. https://git.parabola.nu/abslibre.git/tree/libre/iceweasel/mozconfig#n39 > > 3. > https://gitweb.torproject.org/tor-browser.git/tree/browser/app/profile/firefox.js?h=tor-browser-45.8.0esr-7.0-1#n1511 > > Thanks! anyone else got some insights they want to share? Otherwise I'll get back with this information to torproject. Afterwards I'll continue hacking on this port/package. -- PGP and more: https://people.pragmatique.xyz/ng0/
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] porting torbrowser, fsdg questions
ng0 transcribed 1.3K bytes: > Hi, > > I have the intention to package torbrowser for Guix, a project I > contribute to. > I have started to communicate about this with torproject and some other > projects. In obvious licenses it is okay. What is not clear to me, are > the parts which were changed for example in icecat compared to firefox. > > Depending on what needs to be removed, we could still use the torbrowser > theme and everything connected to it[0]. I just have no idea where to start > sorting out items which might conflict with > https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html > > The obvious thing is, we do not want to encourage the use of the Mozilla > Addon Service (or anything *.mozilla.org). Actually we can move all the > applicable, fitting addons into Guix packages, at least someone > started working on this for the Guix packaged icecat. > What else? If Torproject allows us to use their trademarks, > firefox/mozilla trademarks are still off the table, that's clear. > > What I do not need help with or advice on are issues with the actual packaging > process or issues beyond the application etc, that's up to myself, > torproject, and I know what issues can arise and need to be investigated > or pointed out (for example that it's not an official build but an > replica of what torbrowser developers do). > > 0: That's why I'm asking you, so that I can continue communicating about > this with torproject. > > > Alright, I've taken a look at torbrowser 6.5.1 now (previously all I did was building it, I stopped using it a while ago) The about dialogue is torproject and only gives respect to Mozilla in one line, namely the version: "6.5.1 (based on Mozilla Firefox 45.8.0)" is this okay? is this problematic? I don't know. Names are names, and I don't think we can get in trouble (if torproject allows the branding to be used) for using a branding where a reference to Mozilla Firefox is kept. Moving on: The obvious parts in Preferences are: The Addon Store accesses Mozilla (which promotes non-free addons, extensions etc). Trivial to change thanks to icecat. Firefox "Sync" is enabled (surprising to me), can be disabled again thanks to icecat. "Search" lists Google, should probably-maybe be removed. Next real question I have is about "about:license". I think if this is relevant from our perspective, and the only mistake were that Torproject torbrowser developers did not add their pieces of tor and other included software in there, this can be talked about with them. But to do so, I would need a second pair of eyes to go over it and tell me wether this can cause problems when you work under the FSDG or not. Thanks, ng0
[GNU-linux-libre] porting torbrowser, fsdg questions
Hi, I have the intention to package torbrowser for Guix, a project I contribute to. I have started to communicate about this with torproject and some other projects. In obvious licenses it is okay. What is not clear to me, are the parts which were changed for example in icecat compared to firefox. Depending on what needs to be removed, we could still use the torbrowser theme and everything connected to it[0]. I just have no idea where to start sorting out items which might conflict with https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html The obvious thing is, we do not want to encourage the use of the Mozilla Addon Service (or anything *.mozilla.org). Actually we can move all the applicable, fitting addons into Guix packages, at least someone started working on this for the Guix packaged icecat. What else? If Torproject allows us to use their trademarks, firefox/mozilla trademarks are still off the table, that's clear. What I do not need help with or advice on are issues with the actual packaging process or issues beyond the application etc, that's up to myself, torproject, and I know what issues can arise and need to be investigated or pointed out (for example that it's not an official build but an replica of what torbrowser developers do). 0: That's why I'm asking you, so that I can continue communicating about this with torproject.
Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Violations of GPL in GuixSD packaging design
l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Joshua Gay skribis: > --snip-- >>> Thank you much. I could now unpack the sources. And I could verify that >>> patched wicd sources are on the GuixSD substitute distribution website. >> >> I believe that all resources (binaries, sources, and documentation) are >> all on the same Web site, however, that things are spread out across >> differet parts of that site (www.gnu.org, hydra.gnu.org, etc), correct? > > On a default installation, the ‘guix’ sub-commands download everything > from hydra.gnu.org (including source), unless --no-substitutes is > passed. > > I guess an important difference from a distro like Debian is that, while > probably most users get binaries and source from hydra.gnu.org, users > can ignore it (--no-substitutes) or choose a different server > (--substitute-urls). But in any case, they are still using the very > same Guix. > > This makes it more difficult to reason about “distribution”, because > distribution is orthogonal. > > Again, Guix is essentially a Gentoo-like source distro, and what it > distributes above all is recipes, not binaries. Tricky! While I agree, as a gentoo user and packager I have to point out that gentoo also ships licenses in own, separate files, see https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki//etc/portage/package.license "Licenses are stored in /usr/portage/licenses/." But the package definition (ebuild) only carries the LICENSE variable, for example LICENSE="GPL-3". So Guix could do something equal and ship the complete license texts, or do it on demand (on demand, for example: -> user installs package with $licenses 1+2, guix pulls copy of $licenses 1+2 and saves them in a system accessible location)? If this short reply holds information incorrect on Guix due to not having looked into this part of Guix yet and only the packaging part, please correct me. --snip-- > >>> - the other matter has to be observed that the License itself was not >>> delivered with the substitutes (object or executable form) of the >>> packages I have tried, and I have already searched for License in some >>> of them, such as in aria2, wicd, pulseaudio... >> >> I believe that the license is in the source and the source is being >> provided from the same place (gnu.org) as the binary (which is also >> hosted on gnu.org), but, it could be that doing this in a way that makes >> it easier for downstream recipients to pass along binaries might be >> sensible. > > Unlike several distros, we do not copy ‘COPYING’ and similar files in > the share/doc directory of binaries. We do provide licensing > information as part of the recipes, though, and this information is > accessible using the ‘guix’ command (and of course the license is in the > source, as you note.) > > WDYT? Are there ways this could be improved? > > Thank you! > > Ludo’. > -- ng0
