Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Francesco Poli writes: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:07:09 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > > [...] > > I believe there are actively-enforced patents on DVD-CSS that > > prohibit distribution of, for example, free software that opens > > files encrypted with that scheme. > [...] >

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:07:09 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: [...] > I believe there are > actively-enforced patents on DVD-CSS that prohibit distribution of, for > example, free software that opens files encrypted with that scheme. [...] Is this the actual reason? I was under the impression that the

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> writes: > May I ask again, what law (what jurisdiction) are you talking about. I am being deliberately non-specific about jurisdiction, and limiting the above assertions to those that describe law regardless of jurisdiction. > I am not familiar with North

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> > Are ‘key recovery tools’ illegal somewhere? Tools for circumventing >> > digital restristions measures definitely are. >> >> If you use them on files you legally own, they are legal. They will be >> illegal for cracking content for which you should not have access. > > Another way of saying

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Gunnar Wolf writes: > Dmitry Alexandrov dijo [Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:19:19AM +0300]: > > Are ‘key recovery tools’ illegal somewhere? Tools for circumventing > > digital restristions measures definitely are. > > If you use them on files you legally own, they are legal. They will

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Am Dienstag, den 08.11.2016, 21:18 +0300 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov: > > | 3d. Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included, > > | pointed to or referred to by the distributor of the trial version > > > > We (Debian) cannot possibly agree to such a condition.  It may well > be > >

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> >> > If so I will consider whether to write a cracker or key generator for >> >> > RAR and upload it to unstable! >> >> >> >> Do you really belive that *this* is acceptable? This kind of >> >> software (‘cracks’ at least) is illegal in many jurisdictions. >> > >> > Key recovery tools for

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Dmitry Alexandrov dijo [Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 12:19:19AM +0300]: > >> > If so I will consider whether to write a cracker or key generator for > >> > RAR and upload it to unstable! > >> > >> Do you really belive that *this* is acceptable? This kind of > >> software (‘cracks’ at least) is illegal in

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2016, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > I suppose, providing the full text would be even better. Here is > the licence of RAR 5.3.b2-1 from Debian’s non-free repository: > Copyright (c) 1993-2006 Alexander Roshal > [...] Where did you take this from? It doesn't agree with the

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: > RAR is not part of Debian. It is in non-free. This means we do not > like its licence. Sure, there cannot be any doubt that this is non-free software. The question is if the license that comes with it grants free distribution. >

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Dmitry Alexandrov writes ("Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?"): > [Ian:] > > We (Debian) cannot possibly agree to such a condition. It may well be > > violated in Debian (even in main) already. > > I believe, that clause only implies ‘cracks’ or key ge

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

Hi all, Maintainer here, Will reply in full when at home - doing this by mobile at the moment. If you look at the debian source, there is a copy of the original email granting the redistribution rights in non-free, which solves one of the issues being discussed here, I believe. Will read

Re: Is the RAR archiver freely distributable?

>> In a nutshell, the preamble of the new license seems to transform it >> into a license agreement: Sorry, I have not got the point. What it was before if not a licence agreement? > To save others finding the licence, here it is: > >http://www.win-rar.com/winrarlicense.html?=0 I suppose,