Bug#742994: Non-free images in warmux data package (superman logo)
Package: warmux-data Version: 1:11.04.1+repack-5 Severity: serious See: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071866 * https://trisquel.info/en/issues/11228 * http://www.dccomics.com/copyright * http://www.dccomics.com/terms-of-use The superman logo is copyrighted and not available for redistribution. These files are located in warmux-11.04/data/weapon/supertux/superman.png warmux-11.04/data/weapon/supertux/supertux_ico.png warmux-11.04/data/weapon/supertux/supertux.png -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#732938: gkermit: Description states non-free package ckermit. ckermit is now free software in main
Package: gkermit Severity: normal Dear Maintainer, The description for the gkermit package states The non-free package ckermit adds connection establishment, character-set translation and scripting features. However as of version 301-1 ckermit is now DFSG free and in the main repository. We should remove the non-free description for the ckermit package as it is now free software. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-56-generic (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691082: (no subject)
I should also mention (sorry, forgot) I have tried to contact the maintainer quite a while ago (a few months ago) with no response. As far as I can gather he is MIA. Many bugs from this package with his last response was in the early - mid 2000's. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691082: (no subject)
I should also mention (sorry, forgot) I have tried to contact the maintainer via email quite a while ago (a few months ago) with no response. As far as I can gather he is MIA. Many bugs from this package with his last response was in the early - mid 2000's. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691512: Change language in package description to avoid non-free software references
Package: earcandy Version: 0.9+bzr12-2 Severity: wishlist User: trisq...@trisquel.info Usertags: libreplanet, trisquel The current description of earcandy states[1] (also viewable via apt-cache show earcandy): Features include: fade out music/video players on Skype call, [...] I believe we should alter the language of this package description to something such as Features include: fade out music/video players on VOIP call, [...] for the following reasons: 1) Skype is non-free software and the description is very specific in mentioning that program specifically. 2) The program earcandy should work just as well for any VOIP program besides skype. 3) Skype is not even available in the Debian repositories at all. So it is not like that feature would be relevant to most debian users anyways. Thank you. References: [1]http://packages.debian.org/sid/earcandy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691477: XChat refers to a non-free browser (not even included in Debian) in its URL handlers.
Package: xchat Version: 2.8.8 Description Summary: Source package xchat refers to a non-free browser in its URL handler section. This non-free browser is not even in the Ubuntu repositories (free non-free) so we should not be using it as a URL handler. A URL-handler for an appropriate free software browser was expected. Versions Used: Operating System: Trisquel 5.5 (Ubuntu 11.10 derivative) Package: xchat (2.8.8-3ubuntu8) Notes: Also tested on Debian virtual machine using Debian 6.0.6 Steps to reproduce: Install the install xchat package Open xchat Connect to any network + channel (e.g. #trisquel on freenode) Navigate to settings -- advanced -- URL Handlers Option menu will display a URL Handler for a non-free browser. References: List of software that does not respect the Free System Distribution Guidelines: XChat (http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#XChat) gNewSense GNU/Linux - Bugs: bug #30752, XChat recommends non-free software (https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?30752) X-Chat - Bugs: bug #3043326, RFE: Replace Opera with Free software browser in URL handler (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=3043326group_id=239atid=350239) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#691082: bnetd: should this package be removed?
Package: bnetd Version: 0.4.25-8 Severity: wishlist User: debian...@lists.debian.org Usertags: proposed-removal Dear Maintainer, While reviewing some packages, your package came up as a possible candidate for removal from Debian, because: * No maintainer upload in the last years (March 2008) * Low popcorn * Upstream dead If you think that it should be orphaned instead of being removed from Debian, please reply to this bug and tell so. If you disagree and want to continue to maintain this package, please just close this bug and do an upload also fixing the other issues. If you agree that it should be removed, send the following commands to cont...@bugs.debian.org (replace nn with this bug's number): severity nn normal reassign nn ftp.debian.org retitle nn RM: packagename -- RoM; reasons thanks For more information, see http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.txt Thank you, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686481: Clarification:
Ok, I will preface this by saying I do NOT speak for the FSF. However, in my personal opinion the new documentation does in fact clarify the position of Debian but I don't think it does enough to fix the issue from LibrePlanet's view. Here are a couple examples of why I think that: 1) The new section 2.1.5 under the part about Works that do not meet our free software standards states Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists). 2) Section 2.7.1 titled How to pick Debian packages states you should pick your package based on Component: main contrib non-free 3) The documentation shows how to use these repositories. Now if you look at the GNU GFSD (endorsement criteria) in the Documentation section it states: 1) Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software. 2) What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention conveniences they might gain by doing so. I think these two situations conflict. I think by saying we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages and stating that when picking debian packages a non-free package is ok if something in main or contrib is not available/good enough would violate the documentation criteria from the GNU project. I would do what you ask any leave this bug open and tag it as wontfix but I'm not that skilled with the Debian bug tracker. I know how to mark it wontfix but I'm not sure how to leave it open at the same time. Sorry, Osamu maybe you could help out with that. Thank you for your time everyone. On 10/19/2012 09:01 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote: Grant: would that be enough to fix the issue, in LibrePlanet's view? If you don't, I would understand. But in that case please leave this bug open and tag it as wontfix, as the purpose of the bug reporting exercise is to document this kind of issues and their current state in Debian. -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#687348: yforth has non-free copyright file (does not pass dfsg)
A couple things, intent and what actually happens are two different things. According to Debian legal (as I linked above) it currently does not meet the DFSG which is the expectation it has to meet. Regardless, I got a response from Luca and he is willing to re-license it under a established free software license which will meet the DFSG. He says he will release an updated tarball. I will ask him to possibly contact you when that is complete for re-packaging. On 09/11/2012 10:59 PM, Bdale Garbee wrote: Grant H. sirgr...@member.fsf.org writes: After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I thought that it did not qualify as free software. Why do you say this? The intent of the author was clearly to be fully permissive as long as attribution is retained. For a fairly random piece of software not updated since 1997, I think your expectations for clarity are set way too high. Bdale -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#687348: yforth has non-free copyright file (does not pass dfsg)
Ok, well I am sorry if I bothered you. I honestly didn't come here tostart a fight and maybe should have been more clear. I also agree that if he is willing to change the license that makes for an easy solution. But to answer your question as to why I think it is not dfsg free it is in the debian-legal response I got from Francesco Poli[1]. He clearly states that it is not DFSG free for the following reasons: I think the above-quoted license is extremely vague and ambiguous. It's not at all clear what the term use is supposed to cover. Is copying allowed? Modifying? Redistributing (gratis or in exchange of a fee)? Distributing modified copies? None of these activities is explicitly permitted. As a consequence, this license does not (clearly) meet the DFSG. [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00018.html -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#687348: yforth has non-free copyright file (does not pass dfsg)
Package: yforth Version: 0.1beta-23 Severity: serious User: trisq...@trisquel.info Usertags: trisquel, libreplanet After reviewing the copyright file[1] for the package yforth[2] I thought that it did not qualify as free software. I contacted the debian legal list[3] and they informed me that the copyright for yforth does not meet the DFSG. I contacted the upstream developer and asked him to consider changing the software license per the legal recommendation. However, I wanted to report this issue in case the developer is unwilling to change the license for the software. [1]http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/y/yforth/yforth_0.1beta-21/copyright [2]http://packages.debian.org/source/squeeze/yforth [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00017.html -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686481: Clarification:
1) Thank you for the tips regarding the Debian community. I am new so please excuse any faux pas I make. I will surely preface any bug reports with what you mentioned. 2) I can't speak on behalf of the FSF as I am an associate member (I contribute financially) but am not an employee or spokesman so I can't comment for them. I personally don't think that change would be sufficient but that is just my personal opinion. What you mention is actually the subject of discussion of this mailing list (https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss). We are currently waiting on John Sullivan to make an official statement. 3) (Small note - offtopic). We don't consider apt to be non-free. If you are referring to this (http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#apt). The issue isn't if the software is free or not it is that a file shows users how to enable non-free repos which doesn't meet endorsement criteria for a free system. Telling a user how to install non-free software does not make the program itself non-free. Simple modification (removal of instructions to use non-free repos) of this file would allow it to fall within endorsement criteria 4) As far as the other things you mentioned. The artistic (1.0) license is a difference between debian and GNU project. GNU project considers it to be non-free while debian doesn't. The opposite thing is true with the documentation licenses. GFDL is considered free by the GNU project while non-free by Debian. So if Debian decides to exclude that documentation that is NOT a problem. That is being discussed on the fsf-collab mailing list I linked in section (2). As far as the problem with mono, my understanding is that is a patent problem not a freedom issue. That topic is covered in the free system guidelines link I linked previously. Basically a distro can include them or they can exclude them, it is up to the distro. Same thing with the documentation licenses. Lastly, I am unaware of the issue you raise with LibreOffice so I can't really comment. 4) I will mark this bug as wishlist as you instructed. On 09/05/2012 10:32 AM, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hi, On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 10:24:30AM -0700, Grant H. wrote: Sorry, also to just clarify the bug and what the issue is. Thanks. maybe I should have read link in detail so it is partially my fault too. Excuse me. I think we need to be clear what stage of action is going on and what actions are expected in each communication. Let me go back a bit and propose a bit slower steps. If Zak wants to get the Debian project endorsed by the GNU project[1] as of now Debian would have to abide by the Guidelines for Free System Distributions [2]. This particular package is one such bug that would threaten that endorsement because in the case of documentation: All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software. So, to clarify. This is not a bug/wishlist about the package violating any Debian policy. It is a bug/wishlist against Stefano's idea to get Debian endorsed by the GNU project. The summary of such bugs are: http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines I see. Then all these bugs should be wishlist feature bug to start with. [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html [2]https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html I for one wishes to have GNU endorsement but before discussing it, we need to assess gaps between Debian and GNU. For future filing, please consider to use something like the following to reduce friction and use our unstable archive for bug tracking. This wishlist bug report filed is to elucidate existing sticking points in Debian which block Debian to be qualified as Free System Distributions by FSF. I am filing this bug report from the POV of FSF to answer the call by Stefano Zacchiroli for a free-ness assessment [1]. It is up to the package maintainer and Debian on how to proceed. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html Package: debian-reference (2.48) Problem type: Suggests/instructs installing proprietary software Recommended Fix: Remove program/package or modify to not recommend proprietary software Problem: In 9.7.6. Non-free hardware drivers states as follows: == Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and as a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system. Tip Check available firmware packages with aptitude search ^firmware while enabling the non-free repository. Tip The NDISwrapper can use
Bug#686481: (no subject)
Severity: wishlist -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install, non-free software
Andrei, Thanks for your post too. That is how I understood Stefano's post. Hence, why I stated It is up to the package maintainer on how to proceed. Osamu, Sorry if I made you feel as though you were violating the DPL. That is not the intention. The specific comment which lead to the reporting of this bug was mentioned by Andrei. You can find it in the first paragraph of Zak's email[2] which states: I think we should either get Debian in FSF [free-distros list][1], or document (from our POV) why Debian is not there. I'm looking for Debian volunteers interested in the topic and willing to participate in a joint Debian / FSF team that will work toward that goal without prejudices. The ideal outcome is an agreed upon list of Debian bugs that need to be solved, according to the usual Debian mechanisms, and with no special treatment due to their political origin then in the Next steps section it states: If we want to advance on this topic --- and I think we should, for the reasons mentioned above --- the needed exercise is to work with the FSF to review the issues they claim apply to Debian. It will essentially be a bug triaging exercise. Some of the bugs will be valid, some of them will be not, and on some there will be disagreement between submitter and maintainer. [Continues on...] Also as far as what Trisquel is. Trisquel is a Ubuntu derivative endorsed by the GNU project, we are downstream of Debian. We do sometimes report freedom bugs we find upstream[1] if they apply to Debian as well. We will always fix the issue downstream if need be but we prefer to get it fixed in Debian ideally because then in our opinion many other distros benefit. [1]http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=trisqueluser=trisquel%40trisquel.info [2]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#686481: Clarification:
Sorry, also to just clarify the bug and what the issue is. If Zak wants to get the Debian project endorsed by the GNU project[1] as of now Debian would have to abide by the Guidelines for Free System Distributions [2]. This particular package is one such bug that would threaten that endorsement because in the case of documentation: All the documentation in a free system distribution must be released under an appropriate free license. Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software. So, to clarify. This is not a bug/wishlist about the package violating any Debian policy. It is a bug/wishlist against Stefano's idea to get Debian endorsed by the GNU project. [1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html [2]https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#663554: Don't instruct users to install non-free plugins at all
I believe the direction of this bug should be changed slightly. Debian shouldn't advise users to use non-free plug-ins at all. HPLIP should be modified so it doesn't do that. Stefano Zacchiroli is trying to get Debian on the GNU Projcet's endorsed distro list[1]. A program recommending non-free software to the user compromises this. Especially if, not only does it recommend the proprietary software, it actively goes out and downloads and installs said non-free software. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#685321: Package nvclock talks about how binary (non-free) drivers are required for access
Package: nvclock Version: 0.8b4+cvs20100914-3 User: trisq...@trisquel.info Usertags: trisquel libreplanet Stefano Zacchiroli has called for a Free-ness assessment to work with the FSF on getting Debian endorsed[1]. According to the Guidelines for Free System Distributions a free system can't direct users to the use of nonfree programs [2]. Three packages from the source nvclock indicate that non-free software is required for some sort of access. In their description they state: The official binary NVIDIA drivers are required for accesses other than by root. [3][4][5] This language making nonfree software seem required should be omitted or altered. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html [2] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html#license-rules [3] http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvclock [4] http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvclock-gtk [5] http://packages.debian.org/sid/nvclock-qt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#685321: (no subject)
Russ, thanks for your opinion. As I linked in [1] Stefano has stated: If we want to advance on this topic --- and I think we should, for the reasons mentioned above --- the needed exercise is to work with the FSF to review the issues they claim apply to Debian. It will essentially be a bug triaging exercise. Some of the bugs will be valid, some of them will be not, and on some there will be disagreement between submitter and maintainer. If you disagree with me that is fine. However, I feel that this issue would be one that would impact a Debain Free-ness assessment hence I reported it which Stefano called for. I should also add that this is just my personal opinion and not the FSF's. -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#682708: psutils contains files with unknown/unclear copyright
Package: psutils Version: 1.17-32 Severity: serious User: gnewsense-...@nongnu.org Usertags: gnewsense libreplanet The license file in the psutils source code [1] contains the statement =Quote= The included files, md68_0.ps and md71_0.ps (and their uuencoded forms) are (to the best of my knowledge) copyright Apple Computer, Inc. =Quote= This is an issue for multiple reasons: 1) The copyright is unclear/unknown. Who holds the copyright to these files? 2) If it is in fact Apple Computer what license is it under? They do not appear to be under a free license. Potential fixes: gNewSense GNU/Linux removed both files along with fixmacps[2] I am using Trisquel GNU/Linux 5.5 kernel 3.0.0-23-generic however the issue is present in Debian as well by viewing the source code [1]. The associated Trisquel GNU/Linux bug can be found in the references [3]. References: [1] http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/psutils/psutils_1.17.orig.tar.gz [2]https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?30782 [3]https://trisquel.info/en/issues/5981 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#653328: (no subject)
Severity: serious This should be marked as serious because something being under a non-commercial license is a violation of Debian Free Software Guidelines -- *Grant H. *Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org *Ask me for my GPG key *I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
