Re: Leverage in licensing discussions
Am 2008-11-08 07:35:02, schrieb Robert Collins: > On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 20:01 +, David Given wrote: > > 2. For at least some of these devices, even if the source code was > > available it would add no value, because of legal restrictions > > governing > > which firmware blobs can be used on that hardware. > > I don't agree with this point: there may be no added value for *most > users* - but if I had the firmware source I could e.g. fix a bug to get > a region the manufacturer had not bothered to certify in to certify the > device. Or open up the power/frequency to ranges I hold a licence to > operate in. You can not certify the software, because it is bound to the hardware. Only the combination can be certified. However, if you find a bug and fix it, you can send it back to the manufacturer of the hardware/software, they can test and re-certify the software which will be much more cheaper then the original certification Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
Ben Finney (2008-11-09 10:54 +1100) wrote: > We don't distribute non-free *anything* in Debian. That's what our > users are promised, at any rate. Yes, this claim has been repeated many times, but as a thought-exercise let us be more concrete: who exactly are those users who have been promised? I mean, we know what the DFSG paper says but what and where is the group of people (users) who got that promise and are deeply in their hearts relying on Debian to keep it *in the context of firmwares*? As far as I know, none of us have made a survey for Debian users and studied how they want this "promise" to be applied when it comes to firmware blobs. Neither have I. So when discussing this matter I'd say that it's a lot more *honest* to point directly to the words and sentences in the DFSG paper than to some supposed group of people who is supposed to rely on some supposed promise. Argumentation based on "general opinion" is not valid unless one has some facts what this general opinion is. (I'm sorry for the following religious reference in this international and multi-cultural community but this is only a side note. As you know, some people have the Bible as their guide. In many ways it's a very good guide - in my opinion - but at the same time I think it's a really bad guide if you take every bit in the book literally and refuse to consider the current reality [which is always social construction]. Firmware blobs didn't exist when Jesus lived, and I believe most Debian users understand this.) I like the point Theodore Ts'o made about what is or isn't "going to help make the world a better place." In my opinion being too extremist doesn't serve one's wider goals (if such thing exist) but the person himself. I don't care what category firmware blobs are in Debian (non-free or whatever), but I think firmware which is separated from hardware is definitely not evil. They are even a good thing, and therefore *hardware* which can be supported through free drivers should be supported out-of-the-box by the Debian installer. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
Am 2008-11-08 00:20:52, schrieb Ben Finney: > Are you saying that EU law makes the vendor liable *only* in the case > where the copyright license to the firmware permits the recipient to > modify and redistribute, but *does not* make the vendor liable if the > license doesn't allow this? It seems it is the case becase the procedure is: 1) building the hardware 2) coding the software 3) testing the ensemble in a protected environement 4) certify the hardware to meat certain criterias (emision, antenna power) 5) certify the software FIRMWARE BLOB together with the hardware. Now the original soucre is "worthless" and can be distributed WITH the firmware blob. The license for the source and the blob must say clearly that ONLY the blob is certified und permited to use on the device. If now there is a hacker called "Ben" and find an error and fix it, he can not legaly use use the fixed software because it must be recertified together WITH the hardware. (point 3 and 5) So the only option for "Ben" ist, to send the corrected source back to the manufacturer and ask him to test and relicense it... The problem is, that certifying cost up to 40.000 Euro and re-certifying arround 10-15.000 Euro. So after ONE bugfix, no manufacturer would recertify the software. IF the hardware is not sold at least 50-100.000 times where arround 30-80¢ are calculated for software updates over the first 2 years after first hardware sell. 2 years is the normal European Waranty for NEW bought hardware. This is WHY most cell-phones get not a singel software update (no mather which manufacturer as Nokia, Ericsson, Sony, Siemans/BenQ, LG, ...) Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Am 2008-11-06 01:45:47, schrieb Faidon Liambotis: > That's also false. You can easily jam cellphones using equipment bought > from your local radio shop. > There are even (perfectly legal) commercial products that do exactly that. Maybe in the USNA, but not in Europe... (at least Germany and France) Jaming the GSM Network cost you up to 500.000 Euro and 5 years prison. Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening Michelle Konzack Systemadministrator 24V Electronic Engineer Tamay Dogan Network Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ # Debian GNU/Linux Consultant # Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 +49/177/935194750, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi +33/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com) signature.pgp Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:39:26 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > So if people think that they are going to be able to get firmware in > source form so that popular wireless chips can be driven using 100% DFSG > pure firmware, I suspect they will have a very long wait ahead of them. > The issue is that software controlled radios are cheaper, and that > drives the mass market, so that will be what most manufacturers will > use. Here's an interesting problem with DFSG-free firmware such as those created by the FreeMAC project (for prism54 cards): if they never get FCC- certified, is it legal for Debian to distribute them? They seem to fall into the category of DFSG-free-but-illegal software such as dvdcss or the patented software that we refuse to distribute. So unless the project bends a little here, users are never going to get working hardware no matter what happens. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits > are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian > installation CD itself? If it is true that __Debian__ never includes > any DFSG bits, I would think that would have to include the installer > CD/DVD image itself, no? The images don't include non-free stuff, but they do allow loading non-free firmware. Joey Hess blogged about how it works here: http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upcoming events in Japan
Le Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 10:34:48PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa a écrit : > Hi, > > This is a short note to tell you all about what kind of events are > happening in Japan. Please tell me if there is a more suitable list or > alias to send this to. Hi Junichi, how about [EMAIL PROTECTED] Although it does not completely fit the description on http://lists.debian.org/debian-japanese/, it seems to me that there are some persons lurking there who are not subscribed on the Debian-JP mailing lists. Have a nice day, -- Charles > > 1. Kansai Open Source > > November 7-8 Osaka. > Debian will have a booth, and a few sessions. > http://k-of.jp/ > > 2. Tokyo Area Debian Meeting > > November 15 > LaTeX / whizzytex hands-on. > http://tokyodebian.alioth.debian.org/2008-11.html > > 3. Kansai debian Meeting > > December 14 > Using LaTeX to produce resources. > > http://wiki.debian.org/KansaiDebianMeeting > > > regards, > junichi > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org} -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
Le samedi 08 novembre 2008 à 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso a écrit : > And as I said, I think we should let the DFSG hard-liners win. Let's > yank all of the binaries that require a firmware, and release Lenny > as-is. If that causes some users switch to some fork that actually > has a kernel that works for them, given their hardware, or said users > switch to Ubuntu, then so be it. At least we'll stop flaming about > the issue. Why in the world would we do that when we have all that’s needed to simply move the firmware images to non-free? The only decision pending is whether we should delay the release to fix this issue. Current discussions on -devel are mostly about why the situation is as is, and how to interact with manufacturers. So please go away with the kind of ideas that simply say “fuck off” to our users. Thanks, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here's an interesting problem with DFSG-free firmware such as those > created by the FreeMAC project (for prism54 cards): if they never get FCC- > certified, is it legal for Debian to distribute them? That would be something for a lawyer to answer (such as SPI counsel). > They seem to fall into the category of DFSG-free-but-illegal software > such as dvdcss or the patented software that we refuse to distribute. > So unless the project bends a little here, users are never going to get > working hardware no matter what happens. I doubt it would be a good idea for the ftpmasters to expose themselves and Debian/SPI to legal risk by allowing distribution of illegal software. Solutions to these problems might include; Moving ftp-master to sealand (or similar) and implementing a system to prevent the mirrors from distributing packages illegal in their jurisdictions; this is unlikely to happen any time soon and would probably be prohibitively impractical. A separate ftp-master and mirror system for such packages; already implemented as debian-multimedia.org and debian-unofficial.org) Fix the jurisdictions to be more sane; this is something to work on outside of Debian. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#504758: gforge-plugins-extra ships security issues-prone code copies
tag 504758 + help thanks Raphael Geissert, 2008-11-06 15:42:52 -0600 : > Package: gforge-plugins-extra > Severity: serious > Version: 4.7~rc2-5 > Tags: security > > Hi, > > By taking a look at the list of files shipped by > gforge-plugins-extra I can easily see several scripts which are > already in the Debian archive. I'm using 'serious' as the severity > given the fact that in many of the already packaged scripts security > issues have been found in the past. I'm sort of aware of that, but I'm undecided as to how to react. This package contains plugins that are not exactly supported (by me at least), and these plugins are not installed or made operational when the package is installed. They require manual intervention to set up, and are only shipped as part of a deb as a convenience. The way I see it, there are three ways out: - prepare a new upload that doesn't contain this binary package, and leave users with the task of getting the code from the source package and installing it by hand; - ignore this bug for lenny, since one could argue that the code isn't actually made operational by the mere installation of the package; - actually patch the code to use system-provided packages, and update dependencies accordingly. This has already been done for some libraries (Snoopy and FCKeditor), and it's not a huge task, but I probably won't have time to tackle it before the lenny release (real-life time constraints abound). I'm therefore soliciting advice and/or help on that problem. Roland. -- Roland Mas A lesson for you all: never fall in love during a total eclipse. -- Senex, in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 10:24:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org > > machines, or very popular Dell machines with Broadcom ethernet > > firmware. Great! Cut them off!! Let's see how quickly we can get > > users moving to non-official kernels and installers when the official > > ones don't work for them. Then we can stop fighting about it. The > > DFSG hard liners can go on using the DFSG free kernels, and everyone > > else can either move to another distribution or use an unofficially > > forked kernel package and installer. > > Why not just support it in non-free exactly the way we do other things? > Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free bits, right? I assume that includes in the installer CD-ROM itself. And if you need non-free bits in order to download from the non-free section of the archive, what do you do? From what I understand, the Lenny installer is currently includes the non-free archive, and automatically enable the non-free section in order to allow those users to win. Is that considered OK by you? If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian installation CD itself? If it is true that __Debian__ never includes any DFSG bits, I would think that would have to include the installer CD/DVD image itself, no? - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
* Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [081109 09:31]: > Now the original soucre is "worthless" and can be distributed WITH the > firmware blob. The license for the source and the blob must say clearly > that ONLY the blob is certified und permited to use on the device. > > If now there is a hacker called "Ben" and find an error and fix it, he > can not legaly use use the fixed software because it must be recertified > together WITH the hardware. (point 3 and 5) This is not really new. It is (was?) the same with ISDN cards. There hardware and firmware had to be certified together to be allowed to connect them to the ISDN net here in Germany. And there was still open source drivers. They were simply signed and people prominently told that using an modified version needs them to relicense their device, or only use it in other countries. Hochachtungsvoll, Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Leverage in licensing discussions
Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > Johannes Wiedersich wrote: >> Open sourcing certain firmware might make it easier for 'random script >> kid' to just try some things out and accidentally causing problems to >> innocent bystanders. > > How is this different from open source software? This sounds a bit like > the argument that OSS is less secure than proprietary software, because > people cannot read the source and find security holes. But proprietary > software has not prevented people from exploiting bugs. > > Making anything closed source to prevent modifications does not make > anything more secure. Otherwise, should e.g. Apache be made closed > software so that 'random script kids' cannot create random security > holes (and let their computers become part of a bot net causing problems > to others)? Do you think it is a risk to anyone's health or life, if someone modifies apache's source code and sets up a web site using a modified apache? Or modifies any other code running on her/his computer? Everyone can simply avoid using anyone else's computer or software, but you cannot leave the house without encountering other people's cars (at least in the places were most of us live). > Regards, > Ansgar Cheers, Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:30 PM, Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd prefer to see firmware in a separate section, because it will be > easier to get that section enabled by default for new installs. This will > mean that the installer, or something hooked up to udev/hal, etc., will > be able to automatically install the packages that the user requires. The lenny installer already prompts users to install non-free firmware needed by their hardware and the prompt defaults to yes. Sounds like what you want, except for using non-free instead of a specific non-free-firmware section. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 22:24:16 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: >> > And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract >> > do not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware >> > manufacturers, or stupid FCC policies. >> >> Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debian.org >> machines, or very popular Dell machines with Broadcom ethernet >> firmware. Great! Cut them off!! Let's see how quickly we can get >> users moving to non-official kernels and installers when the official >> ones don't work for them. Then we can stop fighting about it. The >> DFSG hard liners can go on using the DFSG free kernels, and everyone >> else can either move to another distribution or use an unofficially >> forked kernel package and installer. > > Why not just support it in non-free exactly the way we do other things? > > Thomas I'd prefer to see firmware in a separate section, because it will be easier to get that section enabled by default for new installs. This will mean that the installer, or something hooked up to udev/hal, etc., will be able to automatically install the packages that the user requires. Currently, the user needs to be an expert Linux user in order to recognise the symptoms of missing firmware, and then go and track that firmware down and manually install it. -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 1024D/5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package plugins packaging
2008/11/7 Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Another approach is to find out what files are necessary for compiling > plugins. Theoretically, you don't need the C++ sources, only the headers > and maybe some static libraries. Then, you can ship all of this in a > qutim-devel package, and modify the build system of the plugins so that > it uses them. Yeah, that's exactly what I need, thank's a lot :) May be, you can help me with the following? > which CC licenses are treated as DFSG compatible now? Could someone read this > license: > http://pastebin.com/m4ba1c5ed and say, can I package smile pack, which uses > this license, > for the non-free section, or it'll be rejected? -- Best wishes, Velichko Vsevolod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
non-free firmware loading in d-i (was Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices)
Hi there! On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:37:24 +0100, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> If the proposal is to delay the release to make sure that **all** bits >> are moved into the non-free section, what about the debian >> installation CD itself? If it is true that __Debian__ never includes >> any DFSG bits, I would think that would have to include the installer >> CD/DVD image itself, no? > > The images don't include non-free stuff, but they do allow loading > non-free firmware. Joey Hess blogged about how it works here: > > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading/ FWIW, this is very similar to what happens on Windows 2000 and XP when installing directly from a CD: Setup is inspecting your computer's hardware configuration. Press F6 if you need to install a third party SCSI o RAID driver... [various output, press 's' key] Please insert the disk labeled Manufacturer-supplied hardware support disk into Drive A: * Press ENTER when ready. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgpvTvzWw38nb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
Hi, On Sunday 09 November 2008 13:37, Paul Wise wrote: > The images don't include non-free stuff, but they do allow loading > non-free firmware. Joey Hess blogged about how it works here: > > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading/ So all we need is just a download location for tained images, plus a nice howto and/or a gui for creating custom images and then everybody will be happy, those who can use Debian (pure main) and the rest, who for whatever reason needs some non-free bits. I'm starting to think that a new non-free-firmware section makes sense, though not fully convinced yet... regards, Holger pgpccnm4sxtvH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#505112: ITP: bioperl-run -- Wrapper modules for BioPerl
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Package name: bioperl-run Version : 1.5.2.100 Upstream Author : Bioperl Team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> URL : http://www.bioperl.org/wiki/Run_package License : Same as Perl Programming Lang: Perl Description : Wrapper modules for BioPerl Contains modules that provide a Perl interface to various bioinformatics applications to allow them to be used with common BioPerl objects. . Not all the wrappable applications are packaged in Debian. The ones that are are "Suggested" by this package. A friend of mine needed this package, so it is almost ready. I nevertheless welcome comments on the description. -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[OT] Ignorance is no defence. (was ... Re: Leverage in licensing discussions)
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 08:28:16PM +0100, Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > Josselin Mouette wrote: > > Being in favor of open-sourcing firmwares (including those controlling > > critical security devices in cars) does not mean being in favor of > > letting anyone ship their own version. In such cases, there needs to be > > some appropriate process to validate the new versions and to enforce it > > legally. Just like you are not allowed to make any modification you like > > in your engine, you should not be allowed to make modifications in the > > car’s firmware. And just like modifying the engine without the original > > plans makes it more likely to fail, the same holds for a firmware you’d > > modify without source. > > Well, if there is some law preventing me from modifying the code, it's > not free software any more. It's still not 'closed software' but that > still renders it non-free and non-distributable for debian. > > > Indeed. But you can still use a modified firmware, even without the > > source. If ill-intentioned people wanted to do it, this would already be > > quite feasible. > > There is a difference between 'ill-intended people' (those with criminal > intentions) and interested kiddies just downloading and tampering with > freely available source code, having no idea of what harm they might > cause to others. Not in the "eyes of the law". Ignorance is not a defence. Although, with a "decent" lawyer you "should" be OK. Unfortunately, this is also true for the 'ill-intended people'. :( -- Chris. == I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. -- Stephen F Roberts -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who owns /etc/default/locale?
I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package locales at version 2.0.16. On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other, it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not? Could the situation arise by upgrades? One system is 4 years old (upgraded weekly or better), the other just two months old. Surely it isn't architecture dependent (one is x86, the second is amd64)? SYSTEM 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --list locales Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Inst/Cfg-files/Unpacked/Failed-cfg/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Description +++-=-=-== ii locales 2.7-16GNU C Library: National Language (locale) data [support] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --search /etc/default/locale locales: /etc/default/locale SYSTEM 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] --list locales Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold | Status=Not/Inst/Cfg-files/Unpacked/Failed-cfg/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) ||/ Name Version Description +++-=-=-== ii locales 2.7-16GNU C Library: National Language (locale) data [support] [EMAIL PROTECTED] --search /etc/default/locale dpkg: /etc/default/locale not found. -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 06:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free > bits, right? No, not right. Please pay attention. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package plugins packaging
2008/11/9 Vincent Fourmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This makes it look like it is not possible to switch from the original > archive to any other kind of archive. So you cannot distribute it as a > Debian package. Drop it ;-)... Thank you. That's a pity, but I have to deal with it. :) -- Best wishes, Velichko Vsevolod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package plugins packaging
Hello, Всеволод Величко wrote: > May be, you can help me with the following? >> which CC licenses are treated as DFSG compatible now? Could someone read >> this license: >> http://pastebin.com/m4ba1c5ed and say, can I package smile pack, which uses >> this license, >> for the non-free section, or it'll be rejected? I see this: - You can distribute them for free use in forums, chats and other applications, as long as the smiles are unmodified and this text file is included within the RAR file. - You may not repackage them and redistribute them with other smiles without my permission. This makes it look like it is not possible to switch from the original archive to any other kind of archive. So you cannot distribute it as a Debian package. Drop it ;-)... Cheers, Vincent -- Vincent Fourmond, Debian Developer http://vince-debian.blogspot.com/ It was funny how people were people everywhere you went, even if the people concerned weren't the people the people who made up the phrase ``people are people everywhere'' had traditionally thought of as people. -- Terry Pratchet, The Fifth Elephant Vincent, listening to How Many More Times (Led Zeppelin) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Package plugins packaging
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 17:24 +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote: > Hello, > > Всеволод Величко wrote: > > May be, you can help me with the following? > >> which CC licenses are treated as DFSG compatible now? Could someone read > >> this license: > >> http://pastebin.com/m4ba1c5ed and say, can I package smile pack, which > >> uses this license, > >> for the non-free section, or it'll be rejected? > > I see this: > > - You can distribute them for free use in forums, chats and other > applications, as long as the smiles are unmodified and this text file is > included within the RAR file. > - You may not repackage them and redistribute them with other smiles > without my permission. > > This makes it look like it is not possible to switch from the original > archive to any other kind of archive. So you cannot distribute it as a > Debian package. Drop it ;-)... Or, put the rar file in a tarball, and it qualifies for non-free if it's REALLY important to have it available. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who owns /etc/default/locale?
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 09:43 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package > locales at version 2.0.16. > > On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other, > it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not? I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it doesn't install or modify it? * If one purges a package, then reinstall it, then he/she wants to have a maintainer's behavior. * Two packages that uses the same configuration files should either : - agree on the file's format, and know who manage the file (so the second program [Depends|Recommend|Suggest] on the first package, that own the file), - or "Conflict" with each other. /me put on my post-lenny TODO list to send a patch for the policy, and submit a patch for lintian. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who owns /etc/default/locale?
On 2008-11-09 16:43 +0100, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package > locales at version 2.0.16. > > On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other, > it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not? It shouldn't, but on my system it is as well. > Could the situation arise by upgrades? One system is 4 years old > (upgraded weekly or better), the other just two months old. Surely it > isn't architecture dependent (one is x86, the second is amd64)? It depends on if you ever had locales 2.6.1-2 installed. That version mistakenly shipped /etc/default/locale as a conffile, which was reverted in the next upload. See #437404 and #441360. Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 09:25:18AM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: > So the only option for "Ben" ist, to send the corrected source back to > the manufacturer and ask him to test and relicense it... > > The problem is, that certifying cost up to 40.000 Euro and re-certifying > arround 10-15.000 Euro. So after ONE bugfix, no manufacturer would > recertify the software. IF the hardware is not sold at least 50-100.000 > times where arround 30-80¢ are calculated for software updates over the > first 2 years after first hardware sell. IANAL, IANADDY. And what if "Ben" himself or another party, let's say, "Cascardo", wants to pay that to recertify the original hardware + fixed software or a new designed hardware or even an existing but different hardware with the fixed software? As pointed out in another thread, would it really be illegal to distribute said software if Debian does not distribute the hardware it would run on? No one said it is illegal (and I am not pointing it out that it is legal). But I wouldn't deny that freedom for software that runs on my cell phone, my wireless network card, my video card has the same benefits that software that runs on my computer laptop, computer desktop or computer server. What makes them so different, anyway? If that's because it could hurt people, that's why we have laws and certification process. Nothing is currently preventing somebody to use Debian on an airplane, a medical facility or whatever. That's why DFSG#6 exists. So, if the copyright license of said "firmware" is DFSG-compliant and it is legal to distribute it in wherever jurisdiction ftpmaster is working, I can't see a problem in distributing it, even if it was "worthless" for "most" people (which I don't think it would be). > 2 years is the normal European Waranty for NEW bought hardware. > > This is WHY most cell-phones get not a singel software update (no mather > which manufacturer as Nokia, Ericsson, Sony, Siemans/BenQ, LG, ...) > > Thanks, Greetings and nice Day/Evening > Michelle Konzack Regards, Cascardo. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:23:03PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > ,[ Proposal 4 ] > | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade > | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the > | door, decisions need to be done how to get a rock stable release of the > | high quality Debian is known for, release more or less on time, and to > | minimize the usage of problematic software. We acknowledge that there > | is more than just one minefield our core developers and the release > | team are working at. > | > | We as Developers at large continue to trust our release team to follow > | all these goals, and therefor encourage them to continue making ^ \ typo: missing "e" here > We need a title for proposal 4, which allows the release team to > override the social contract using case-by-case decisions. What about "delegate decision to the release team" ? Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Please reply only if interested
Hello, I am Arshavin Igor Andreevich, I work with a company that is into oil and gas distribution here in Russia, we are looking for a trustworthy representative in the united states that will aid as a link between our company and our clients over there in United states,Canada and Germany respectively. We will like to know if you are interested,Please reply only if you will like to work from home part-time and get paid weekly without leaving or it affecting your present job. please do get to me ASAP for further inquires. Thanks. Arshavin Igor Andreevich Sales Director HEADQUARTERS (Moscow) Moscow, Russian Federation Vernadskogo Street, 41, B.1 Tel +79117034326 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
Joey Hess wrote: > http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading > http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/ > > I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally > unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better? It's also documented in the new version of the Installation Guide which is to be uploaded in the next few days: http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch06s04.html signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Package plugins packaging
2008/11/9 Martin Meredith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Or, put the rar file in a tarball, and it qualifies for non-free if it's > REALLY important to have it available. Wow, it's really interesting idea :) Hopefully, I'll have no need in this. -- Best wishes, Velichko Vsevolod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Nov 08, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So while I am personally of the DFSG only makes sense for executable > *software* that runs on the host CPU, previous GR's have shown that > this position has a distinct minority. So why not let the DFSG > hard-liners win this one completely? The current kernel team, if they I agree. While I have always opposed the "editorial changes" and the removal of firmwares from Debian, if the DFSG-revisionists won I can't see why the DFSG should be selectively enforced. Either we create (i.e. vote) a document defining which parts of the DFSG can be ignored for an indefinite time or the release managers and ftpmasters should apply it as usual every time a violation is reported and confirmed. Myself, I'd like a Debian fork with RHEL kernels anyway... -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/d-i_firmware_loading http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/firmware/ I'm not sure what to do about both the Debian project being generally unaware of functionality already present in Debian. Document it better? Wet fishes applied to anyone who starts a flamewar about it? FWIW, I think that Ted makes good points about installing non-free's effect on users, and about a firmware section in the active being desirable. The current implementation tries to avoid these problems as much as it can without requiring big changes just before release[1]. -- see shy jo, not subscribed to this mailing list or active in the project [1] That is, 4 months ago when I implemented it. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG violations in Lenny: Summarizing the choices
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 12:47:01PM +, David Given wrote: > > In which case things have changed within the past couple of years --- > > after all, the whole purpose of the Atheros HAL was to inforce those FCC > > limits. Do you have any references? Like, to an FCC statement of policy > > change? If so, it would be extremely useful to have. > > There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC > could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out > how to reverse engineer the HAL and/or the firmware to cause their > WiFi unit to become a "super radio" that could transmit on any > frequency, that the FCC could prohibit the *hardware* from being sold > anywhere in the US. Why are they making hardware that can transmit on *any* frequency? Why are they not making hardware that transmits in the 2.4GHz ISM band perhaps with firmware to 'fine tune' it? Seems strange to pour lots of money into making an all-band radio then locking it to a 500MHz band. > So realistically, let's be honest with ourselves. Not supporting > devices that require non-free firmwares is not going to help make the > world a better place. What it will probably do is that users, once > they find out that that a Debian install will result in various bits > and pieces of their hardware being non-functional until they figure > out how to download various magic firmware components, or manually > configuring the non-free repository, will probably simply switch to > another distribution, such as Fedora or Ubuntu. At which point there > will be even *fewer* Debian users, and so Debian will have even *less* > leverage. Lets not forget there are people who will/do explicitly move *to* Debian because of its DFSG and freeness. kk > > - Ted -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Who owns /etc/default/locale?
Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have two systems. Both track unstable, and have package > locales at version 2.0.16. > On one system, package locales owns /etc/default/locale, on the other, > it doesn't. Should the file be owned by locales or not? > Could the situation arise by upgrades? Yes. > SYSTEM 1 [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] --search /etc/default/locale > locales: /etc/default/locale [...] Some versions of the locales package contained the file, but it stopped being shipped in 2.6.1-3 (see bug #441360). dpkg nowadays tracks orphaned conffiles, i.e. conffiles that previously were owned by a package and have not been removed. It will still find them with dpkg -S, and list them in dpkg -s. System one probably once had a locale package that shipped the file installed. cu andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny
Hi, At this point, the following people have sponsored and seconded the proposals detailed below. As best I can tell, the final proposal (4) to get enough sponsors got it at Sun, 9 Nov 2008 14:38:41 UTC. So, we now have a discussion period of two weeks, though I would prefer to actually start the vote Sunday 00:00:00 UTC (on November 23th, or, if the DPL desires to shorten the discussion period, november 16th). (BTW, I am a huge fan of these embedded spreadsheets) |+---+---+---+---| || 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |+---+---+---+---| | Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 1 | | | | | Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 1 | 1 | | | | Holger Levsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | | Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Hubert Chathi <[EMAIL PROTECTED] | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>| | | | 1 | | Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | 1 | | Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | | | Bernd Zeimetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | 1 | | Neil McGovern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | | | 1 | | Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | 1 | 1 | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rémi Vanicat) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |+---+---+---+---| || 7 | 7 | 6 | 6 | |+---+---+---+---| #+TBLFM: $2=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$3=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$4=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED])::$5=vsum(@[EMAIL PROTECTED]) The ballot and wml for the vote web pages should now be drafted by the sponsors, to be put into place by the secretary team. manoj ,[ Proposal 1: reaffirm the Social Contract ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that we promised to deliver a 100% free operating system | (Social Contract #1); | | 3. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have | non-free bits in various parts of Debian, and a lot of progress has | been made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a | free version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the | release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the operating | system is complete (to the best of our knowledge as of 1 November 2008). ` ,[ Proposal 2: allow Lenny to release with proprietary firmware ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware | issue; most of the issues that were outstanding at the time of the | last stable release have been sorted out. However, new issues in the | kernel sources have cropped up fairly recently, and these new issues | have not yet been addressed; | | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the | progress made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian | relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge | as of 1 November 2008); | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless | firmware as a best-effort process, and deliver firmware as part of | Debian Lenny as long as we are legally allowed to do so. | | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 3: (allow Lenny to release with DFSG violations ] | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance | issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out; | | 3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the | progress made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian | relative to the Etch release in Lenny (to the best of our knowledge | as of 1 November 2008); | | 4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as | a best-effort process. | | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 | majority) ` ,[ Proposal 4 ] | Debian's priorities are our users and free software. We don't trade | them against each other. However during getting an release out of the | door, decisions need to be done how
Re: Who owns /etc/default/locale?
Frank Lin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [] > I have question which is directly related: shouldn't a package own and > declare all the configuration files that it uses, even if it doesn't > install or modify it? [...] No. Not all configuration files can be managed as dpkg conffiles. cu andreas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
