Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   Gentoo Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/)
-   -   Clarify the "as-is" license? (http://www.linux-archive.org/gentoo-development/707200-clarify-license.html)

Ulrich Mueller 09-25-2012 11:04 AM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)

I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
to these groups, in the first place.

Ulrich

[1] <http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/licenses/HPND>


Tue Sep 25 13:30:01 2012
Return-Path: <bounce-debian-user=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on
eagle542.startdedicated.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,FSL_RCVD_USER,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-Original-To: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivered-To: tom-linux-archive.org@eagle542.startdedicated.com
Received: from bendel.debian.org (bendel.debian.org [82.195.75.100])
by eagle542.startdedicated.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84A3B20E007A
for <tom@linux-archive.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:09:04 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 7A20820A; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:08:51 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de>
X-Original-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9407C7
for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:08:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham
Received: from bendel.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id nfAcKNDPqpFu for <lists-debian-user@bendel.debian.org>;
Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate: -6.1
Received: from mail.ddt-consult.de (mail.ddt-consult.de [176.9.143.18])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client did not present a certificate)
by bendel.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 922A0254
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:08:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ddt-filter.ddt-consult.intern (ddt-filter.ddt-consult.intern [192.168.1.116])
by mail.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95BB2CDE5B
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:08:30 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=
list-post.mks-mail.de; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type
:content-type:in-reply-to:references:subject:subject
:mime-version:user-agent:reply-to:from:from:date:date:message-id
:received:received; s=lpm; t=1348571310; bh=//V555YG8YBXMNImyqZD
XTMVbfuIwg+tipWrJ1C/kM8=; b=C1Xr4JxV/HAZ1xPGVG+vknPTOyW0koMK2EfK
niCyVjZfkkwUINtyrHDFI545oUoWcySrw/ArMZUNHCBmuTrEXmP0zHyI6pquD2uO
5VBMLq17nduNmbbML1VuhkyGumRPcPMWQdjlNEZrNawLw3AJaM Niy8h0s84eSczH
b+L/EeE=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ns1
Received: from mail.ddt-consult.de ([192.168.1.101])
by ddt-filter.ddt-consult.intern (ddt-filter.ddt-consult.intern [192.168.1.116]) (amavisd-new, port 20024)
with LMTP id NzXwgO3IxqpW for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>;
Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:08:30 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from legolas.home.ddt.intern (p5DC36BBD.dip.t-dialin.net [93.195.107.189])
(Authenticated sender: mks@list-post.mks-mail.de)
by mail.ddt-consult.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71C992CDE42
for <debian-user@lists.debian.org>; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:08:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <506190AD.4040205@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:08:29 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFya3VzIFNjaMO2bmhhYmVy?=
<debian-user@list-post.mks-mail.de>
Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: /var/spool/mail ?
References: <SNT125-W430EA009C2C02578290712DB9D0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <SNT125-W430EA009C2C02578290712DB9D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <cB7T2NowBmJ.A.QgC.DDZYQB@bendel>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/640507
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-user.lists.debian.org>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-user@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-user-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:08:51 +0000 (UTC)

25.09.2012 11:47, Hadi Motamedi:

> On my server , the /var/spool/mail/root is getting very big in size. To free up more space, can you please let me know how can I solve the problem ?
> Thank you

Probably the best way to solve the problem is to find out what the
*real* problem is. I. e. if root's mail file gets big, then it's
probably because root gets a lot of mail and you should check why this
is the case.
Once you have done this and corrected the problem(s) that caused the
mail flood, it might be a good idea to redirect root's mail to an
account you actually monitor.

--
Regards
mks


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/506190AD.4040205@list-post.mks-mail.de

Diego Elio Pettenò 09-25-2012 03:30 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
On 25/09/2012 04:04, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
> We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)

Thanks! I guess for me it's time to go fix all the ruby packages that have

LICENSE="as-is" # really

:P

--
Diego Elio Pettenò — Flameeyes
flameeyes@flameeyes.eu — http://blog.flameeyes.eu/

Alexandre Rostovtsev 09-25-2012 03:55 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
On Tue, 2012-09-25 at 13:04 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> I'll also remove as-is from @GPL-COMPATIBLE and @OSI-APPROVED again,
> as soon as all packages in the system set have been fixed (only
> net-misc/openssh and sys-apps/man-pages). It shouldn't have been added
> to these groups, in the first place.

I have been using "as-is" to mean licenses that allow anything and
everything as long as the copyright notice is preserved. For example,

# This file is free software; the author(s) gives unlimited
# permission to copy and/or distribute it, with or without
# modifications, as long as this notice is preserved.

If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
license should I use instead for such packages?

Rich Freeman 09-25-2012 05:14 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Alexandre Rostovtsev
<tetromino@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> If "as-is" will be removed from @GPL_COMPATIBLE, what gpl-compatible
> license should I use instead for such packages?

HPND as long as the license meets the description within the file. If
you've been applying the logic you stated that should generally be the
case.

Making the default to not be @gpl_compatible is a good move. That way
we ensure everything gets positive review. The only alternative would
be to do a scan and log a bazillion bugs for everybody to do a check
and then take some kind of action for those that don't respond.

Rich

Ulrich Mueller 09-25-2012 06:12 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Sep 2012, Diego Elio Petten wrote:

>> I've created licenses/HPND [1] now, and added it to the @OSI-APPROVED
>> group. So packages whose license matches this template can be changed
>> from as-is to HPND. (And please, _only_ OSD-compliant packages.
>> We don't want the same mess again, as we have with as-is.)

> Thanks! I guess for me it's time to go fix all the ruby packages that have

> LICENSE="as-is" # really

Sounds good. :-) Bug 436214 if you need a tracker for them.

Ulrich

Ulrich Mueller 09-29-2012 09:21 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:

> I have one question: The license can be GPL-compatible but the
> software itself non-free. So binary-only packages distributed under
> e.g. BSD license should remain BSD or not?

Yes, if it's BSD licensed then it should have LICENSE="BSD".

> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.

I'm aware that we can't distinguish the two cases. Should we have a
"binary-only" license to catch it?

Ulrich

Rich Freeman 09-29-2012 11:38 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012, Ch*-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> If we start to measure the software freedom of the code inside the
>> package, then maybe LICENSE is the wrong variable to express this.
>
> I'm aware that we can't distinguish the two cases. Should we have a
> "binary-only" license to catch it?

The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens
that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source.

Does it really matter? Before we start overloading the LICENSE flag
to represent something other than the license we should probably have
a problem to actually fix.

As far as freedom of code goes, arguably the code is perfectly free -
it just isn't open source. You could legally decompile, modify,
recompile, and redistribute it and your assembly language sources as
much as you like.

Rich

10-03-2012 09:18 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 19:38:50 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> The license isn't binary-only. The license is BSD. It just happens
> that the thing they're licensing is the binary and not the source.
>
> Does it really matter? Before we start overloading the LICENSE flag
> to represent something other than the license we should probably have
> a problem to actually fix.
>
> As far as freedom of code goes, arguably the code is perfectly free -
> it just isn't open source. You could legally decompile, modify,
> recompile, and redistribute it and your assembly language sources as
> much as you like.

Imho software as it's described here shouldn't get a LICENSE which is
in @FREE, such as BSD.

For a software to be free, it has to be possible to change it in any
way you want. And "to be possible" and "to be allowed" really aren't
the same here! (Except if you are either masochistic or one of these
gurus which eat assembly code for breakfast).

I have an ACCEPT_LICENSE="-* @FREE" in my make.conf, so I expect that
there's only free software on my system (except for those packages I
explicitly allowed via package.license, for sure). I couldn't make this
assumption anymore if software as you describe it would get a @FREE
LICENSE.

Cheers,
aranea

Ulrich Mueller 10-06-2012 02:14 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
Related issue: Many metapackages are marked "as-is". If they install
no files at all, then they should technically have the empty string
as LICENSE. Which is forbidden by repoman.

Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label
for these packages (suggested by Matija *uklje to licenses@g.o) and
add it to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows:

╓────[ licenses/metapackage ]
║ This is a metapackage that (itself) installs no files, therefore no
║ license is needed.

║ This does not in any way imply under which licenses the packages in it
║ are distributed. Check the metapackage's dependencies for their actual
║ license terms.
╙────

If you don't object, I would commit this and also update the license
info of any metapackage I come across.

Ulrich

Duncan 10-06-2012 03:24 PM

Clarify the "as-is" license?
 
Ulrich Mueller posted on Sat, 06 Oct 2012 16:14:57 +0200 as excerpted:

> Alternatively, we could introduce an own "metapackage" license label for
> these packages (suggested by Matija *uklje to licenses@g.o) and add it
> to the appropriate license groups. Text would be as follows:
>
> ╓────[ licenses/metapackage ]
> ║ This is a metapackage that (itself) installs no files, therefore no
> ║ license is needed.
> ║
> ║ This does not in any way imply under which licenses the packages in it
> ║ are distributed. Check the metapackage's dependencies for their actual
> ║ license terms.
> ╙────

Useful idea. LGTM.

Thanks to all those working on this. Licenses are important to get
right, but working on them can't be particularly enjoyable. Your work is
appreciated. =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.