[gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Daniel Black]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]


As software licenses seem to be so popular to talk about on gentoo-dev how 
about this one.

Marijn mentioned on Irc that the bestcrypt license commercial trial license 
shouldn't be a supported package in Gentoo.

Seeking further there is more....

Other licenses with a free time limited evaluation that are supported in 
Gentoo portage:
ALMWorks-1.2
Arkkra
OTN
RAR

BestCrypt is similar:
"BestCrypt for Linux is distributed as software with 30 days evaluation 
period. After evaluation period expired, the user has to either pay for 
his/her copy of BestCrypt software for Linux or uninstall it. (see  End User 
License Agreement.)"
http://www.jetico.com/index.htm#/linux.htm (Additional Notes)

Is there a need for official policy here (and a bit of package removals)?


-- 
Daniel Black <dragonheart@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 573 bytes --]

On Mon, 14 May 2007 21:26:17 +1000
Daniel Black <dragonheart@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Is there a need for official policy here (and a bit of package
> removals)?

There's no official policy preventing commercial software from
being in the tree, so long as some conditions are met [1] -- although if
source code isn't available for a package, it's very hard to support it
properly.

Such packages probably shouldn't be included in the default accepted
licences, however.

[1]: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/tree/index.html

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Raúl Porcel]

Add nero to that list.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Timothy Redaelli]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1351 bytes --]

Daniel Black ha scritto:
> As software licenses seem to be so popular to talk about on gentoo-dev how 
> about this one.
> 
> Marijn mentioned on Irc that the bestcrypt license commercial trial license 
> shouldn't be a supported package in Gentoo.
> 
> Seeking further there is more....
> 
> Other licenses with a free time limited evaluation that are supported in 
> Gentoo portage:
> ALMWorks-1.2
> Arkkra
> OTN
> RAR
> 
> BestCrypt is similar:
> "BestCrypt for Linux is distributed as software with 30 days evaluation 
> period. After evaluation period expired, the user has to either pay for 
> his/her copy of BestCrypt software for Linux or uninstall it. (see  End User 
> License Agreement.)"
> http://www.jetico.com/index.htm#/linux.htm (Additional Notes)
> 
> Is there a need for official policy here (and a bit of package removals)?

/me votes for remove them (and app-cdr/nero)

We removed winex for a similar reason and imho it's better to remove
this crap from the repository (it's difficult to support that packages
without violate the licence)

-- 
Timothy `Drizzt` Redaelli - http://dev.gentoo.org/~drizzt/
FreeSBIE Developer, Gentoo Developer, GUFI Staff
There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence.      -- Jeremy S. Anderson


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]

Timothy Redaelli napsal(a):
> /me votes for remove them (and app-cdr/nero)

Uhm, kindly leave app-arch/rar alone; that unrar-gpl thing is just a bad
joke.

(No idea what does the rest of licenses belong to, would make sense to
post ebuilds names instead.)


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 783 bytes --]

Carsten Lohrke napsal(a):
> On Montag, 14. Mai 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
>> Uhm, kindly leave app-arch/rar alone; that unrar-gpl thing is just a bad
>> joke.
> 
> There's app-arch/unrar, so this is no point. When unrar-gpl is so broken, why 
> it's in the tree?
> 
> 
> Carsten

As the name unrar suggests, it doesn't *pack* stuff, in only unpacks it.
So, thanks and leave the thing alone in the tree; and yeah, there are
really people who work w/ .rar stuff still, tar.{gz,bz2} hasn't
dominated the world yet.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Dan Offord]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1112 bytes --]

There is a bug report on app-cdr/nero still waiting for the maintainer to
update the portage tree, so that the current version of nero actually
downloads, rather than its current state of constant 404 errors.

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172717

On 14/05/07, Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Carsten Lohrke napsal(a):
> > On Montag, 14. Mai 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> >> Uhm, kindly leave app-arch/rar alone; that unrar-gpl thing is just a
> bad
> >> joke.
> >
> > There's app-arch/unrar, so this is no point. When unrar-gpl is so
> broken, why
> > it's in the tree?
> >
> >
> > Carsten
>
> As the name unrar suggests, it doesn't *pack* stuff, in only unpacks it.
> So, thanks and leave the thing alone in the tree; and yeah, there are
> really people who work w/ .rar stuff still, tar.{gz,bz2} hasn't
> dominated the world yet.
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Jakub Moc
> mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
> GPG signature:
> http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
> Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA
> 3D9E
>
> ... still no signature   ;)
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1682 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]

On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 15:27 +0200, Timothy Redaelli wrote:
> We removed winex for a similar reason and imho it's better to remove
> this crap from the repository (it's difficult to support that packages
> without violate the licence)

No, we removed the winex-cvs package because upstream were being tools
about it.  We still have cedega in the tree.

We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering Strategic Lead
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee
Gentoo Foundation

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Carsten Lohrke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 520 bytes --]

On Montag, 14. Mai 2007, Jakub Moc wrote:
> As the name unrar suggests, it doesn't *pack* stuff, in only unpacks it.

Why do you come with unrar-gpl then. I'd assume the same for it.

> So, thanks and leave the thing alone in the tree; and yeah, there are
> really people who work w/ .rar stuff still, tar.{gz,bz2} hasn't
> dominated the world yet.

If there were an issue with distributing the rar package, the usual answer 
were to use another archiver, no matter how many people complained.


Cratsen


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 631 bytes --]

On Monday 14 May 2007, Daniel Black wrote:
> Marijn mentioned on Irc that the bestcrypt license commercial trial license
> shouldn't be a supported package in Gentoo.

if you dont want to support it then dont ... it isnt any dev's place to tell 
other devs what software they choose to support

> Is there a need for official policy here (and a bit of package removals)?

here's an idea: maintain what *you* want to maintain, dont tell others they 
cant maintain things

if you dont like commercial software, then dont use it ... if you want a 
distribution that forbids use of such software, switch to Debian
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> 
> We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.

Exactly, I don't understand the problem here.

/me votes to remove vmware

Yeah, like that will ever happen :)

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Roy Marples]

On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700
Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > 
> > We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.
> 
> Exactly, I don't understand the problem here.
> 
> /me votes to remove vmware
> 
> Yeah, like that will ever happen :)

Bet you wouldn't mind if the nVidia and ATI drivers got punted though,
eh?

Thanks

Roy
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] trial software in portage?

[Greg KH]

On Wed, May 16, 2007 at 08:36:27AM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2007 00:25:22 -0700
> Greg KH <gregkh@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 09:10:22AM -0700, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > 
> > > We also have *tons* of other commercial software in the tree.
> > 
> > Exactly, I don't understand the problem here.
> > 
> > /me votes to remove vmware
> > 
> > Yeah, like that will ever happen :)
> 
> Bet you wouldn't mind if the nVidia and ATI drivers got punted though,
> eh?

Not in the slightest :)

And the load of wifi drivers that are also not OpenSource.

See, I bet people didn't really think through that whole "no closed
source packages in the tree" statement, now did they...

thanks,

greg k-h
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list