Bug#863720: aiccu: SixXS will shutdown on 2017-06-06

[Pim van Pelt]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: severity -1 important
> Control: tag -1 confirmed
>
> Hi Ansgar,
>
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> Severity: serious
>
> I disagree with severity.
>
>> SixXS will shutdown on 2017-06-06[1].
>
> Yes, well-known and already discussed (on IRC IIRC) by us package
> maintainers.
>
>> Unless there are other tunnel providers used with aiccu, it seems
>> useless to include in stretch.
>
> Yes, but before we decide to pull the line I want to wait until _at
> least_ that date (which is next week and not today) and _not_ pull the
> line _before_ this date.
Agreed, although the install base won't change between now and the
sunset, so I'm not too fussed about in-or-out at this point. See below
though.
> Pim van Pelt wrote:
>> It may be in our future to opensource the server implementation
>
> Any reason why you can't publish it as is?
https://sixxs.net/sunset describes this, here's the pertinent language:

| Will you open source SixXS code?
|
| We do not currently have plans to open source any code that is not
already publicly available.
| Although our provisioning servers and routing daemon (sixxsd) are
very well thought out, they
| do have some intricate dependencies on how we built SixXS. As such,
offering the code base
| will not be necessarily useful for others. Over time, given effort
on Jeroen’s part, this may
| change. We cannot make any promises at this point.

Additional thought -- I do not look forward to explaining to several
integrators how to use the server code, although it's reasonably
standalone, the SixXS server works in conjunction with our automation
bits on the provisioning server side. Also worth pointing out, if
you're interested, is this piece:

| Will you hand over the project to other folks?
|
| We are fairly protective of our brand and position in the community.
Due to the nature of SixXS,
| which rests on an open source client (aiccu) with a closed source
server (sixxsd), we are not
| willing to hand over the project. However, that aside, the main
justification for our decision as
| outlined in this document, is that we are of the belief that IPv6
Tunnel Brokers are no longer
| facilitating access providers moving to IPv6, and as such do not
wish for the project to be
| continued. Handing it over to other folks will not allow us to
satisfy our concerns.

If my mission is to stop tunnelbrokers, opensourcing the code is not
productive. However, we may change our mind after a certain cool-down
period. Time will tell, which is why I was opting for a resubmission
iff we decide to go that route.


>> but at that point we can stand up a repo for ourselves.
>
> This comment by Pim makes me even think that we should keeping it in
> Stretch. Because why else should upstream keep a Debian package
> maintained in an external repo if a suitable server will be available
> soon-ish?
>
>> Would you be open to resubmitting in such a scenario?
>
> Sure.
Thanks!

-- 
Pim van Pelt <p...@ipng.nl>
PBVP1-RIPE - http://www.ipng.nl/

Bug#863720: aiccu: SixXS will shutdown on 2017-06-06

[Pim van Pelt]

Agreed. It may be in our future to opensource the server implementation but
at that point we can stand up a repo for ourselves. Would you be open to
resubmitting in such a scenario?

Pim

On May 30, 2017 14:09, "Ansgar Burchardt"  wrote:

> Source: aiccu
> Version: 20070115-17
> Severity: serious
>
> SixXS will shutdown on 2017-06-06[1].  Unless there are other tunnel
> providers used with aiccu, it seems useless to include in stretch.
> From a quick glance at [2], SixXS is the only provider using AYIYA and
> TIC which is what I believe aiccu implements.
>
> Ansgar
>
>   [1] 
>   [2] 
>
>

Bug#405606: Ayiya bug? (Was: aiccu is now under 3-clause BSD license)

[Pim van Pelt]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 12:32:23AM +1100, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
| (CC list trimmed to those relevant to the bug)
I've bounced this to Jeroen, who has better judgment on these
things than I do. 

-- 
-- - -- - -+- - -- - --
Pim van Pelt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#405606: Ayiya bug? (Was: aiccu is now under 3-clause BSD license)

[Pim van Pelt]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 05:06:06PM +0100, Pim van Pelt wrote:
| On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 12:32:23AM +1100, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
| | (CC list trimmed to those relevant to the bug)
| I've bounced this to Jeroen, who has better judgment on these
| things than I do. 
Jeroen suggests that he has changed more things than just what you
mention. He prefers a full integrate of our 20070107 release, amongst
others because we relicensed it and would prefer to see all
distributions using the same source. Ubuntu, Fedora, Redhat, OpenWRT 
and Free/Net/OpenBSD (*) have taken the 20070107 release. We recommend that 
Debian jump on the bandwagon.

(*) The ports of Free- and OpenBSD are still pending committer approval.
-- 
-- - -- - -+- - -- - --
Pim van Pelt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#405606: aiccu is now under 3-clause BSD license

[Pim van Pelt]

Hoi,

On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 12:13:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
| The license has been discussed on #debian-release, and it's my understanding
| that the old license was also DFSG-compliant in intent (with the help of
| some clarifications from upstream that had already happened).
Even though it was thought to be free in intent by some people, not
everybody agreed on this. I believe our current license takes away any 
possible doubt.

| So I'd say releasing it in main is still an option, *if* someone were
| interested in a targetted fix and thought that would be a supportable
| configuration.
To recap, the most important goal for us is to get the old version
out of Debian. If that could be done for the Etch release, that'd be
good. If there is anything I or SixXS can do to help this, let me know. 

Thanks for the work so far - I feel we're making substantial process :)
-- 
-- - -- - -+- - -- - --
Pim van Pelt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#388759: aiccu license

[Pim van Pelt]

Paul,

We will change the aiccu license on our next release. Let us say, for
arguments sake, that we release our next version on Wednesday January 
10th (providing we can get everything done before that time), and the
license will be an unaltered BSD license. Will aiccu be included in the
next stable Debian under main ?

| I'd be interested also if the Debian Maintainer (CC'd via the relevant
| bug report) feels this change would be sufficient to clarify the license
| text to match the FAQ and various reported email exchanges and hence
| allow aiccu to be included in the Debian distribution.

Anand, can you comment on that, taking into account our relicense above ?
Our goals are to have the latest aiccu in Debian (main), and definately
the current one in Debian removed, because it is broken and hurting our 
users.

groet,
Pim
-- 
-- - -- - -+- - -- - --
Pim van Pelt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#405606: Readd aiccu from 2007.01.07 release

[Pim van Pelt]

Hoi,

The version of aiccu in Debian has been broken for ~9 months. We have
solved the license issues that some folks seem to have, and will release
an aiccu version 2007.01.07 with a 3-clause BSD license. Many fixes have
been incorporated. In stead of dropping aiccu from Etch, I suggest
pulling the upstream version from SixXS and keeping it.

We are planning on releasing on Wednesday. You can then take the current
copy from http://www.sixxs.net/archive/sixxs/aiccu/unix/

groet,
Pim (SixXS)
-- 
-- - -- - -+- - -- - --
Pim van Pelt Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ipng.nl/ IPv6 Deployment
---


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#388759: aiccu license

[Pim van Pelt]

Hi folks,

Thanks, Paul, for your insights. For your information, we have released
AICCU today, using a BSD license as described. This should permanently take
care of any legal issues you might have.

On 1/7/07, Paul TBBle Hampson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


The transition from non-free to main will have to go through the
FTP Masters anyway, and that's a non-trivial delay generally.


I have heard from ftp masters in the past that they are willing to take this
on (around 14/Aug/2006, Anthony Towns, via Philipp Kern). Perhaps it is
still a possibility.


Anand, can you comment on that, taking into account our relicense above ?
 Our goals are to have the latest aiccu in Debian (main), and definately
 the current one in Debian removed, because it is broken and hurting our
 users.

And of course a version going into main would be a good impetus to kick
the old version out of Etch, where it's doing more harm than good I
understand.


Yes, aiccu in Debian does not work. If releng does not approve of aiccu in
main right now, then we would benefit also by an upload of 20070107 to
non-free, so that at least the folks that want to use the Debian pool are in
luck.

I've CC'd this to debian-release on the off-chance that it's in their

sights regarding freeze-breakage, but frankly, I think we're three
months too late on this one.


I understand - this has been an ongoing issue for quite some time now (~ 3
quarters). Let me know what the plans are, so SixXS knows where we stand. If
anything can be done to fix the brokenness of aiccu in Debian, we're all
ears!

--
--- - -- - -+- - -- - ---
Pim van Pelt [EMAIL PROTECTED] PBVP1-RIPE
http://www.ipng.nl/