Bug#928415: disabling javascript
There is no such banner - at least not in current Debian Stable. On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 2:06 AM Brad Barnett wrote: > While I agree an unknown disabling of plugins, not just noscript (there > are others like noscript) is a security concern... > > There is a big, yellow banner that appears and stays at the top of your > browser, informing you if any plugins/add-ons are disabled. > > So for me, the 'big deal' is being informed. Then the user can, at that > point, disable javascript manually if required. > > After all, is noscript "special" in some way? More special than another > add-on for blocking javascript?
Bug#383403: Doesn't seem to be fixed
maximilian attems wrote: On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 06:57:32PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: It doesn't seem like this has been fully fixed. Source package linux-2.6_2.6.25-3 still contains e.g. drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c ohh great a new stupid voice appearing. as told in the message that you seeminlgy read, file a new bug with supporting evidence. oh and on inspect you are even wrong so just wasting time. mga_ucode.h is BSD licensed thus distributable. Yes, sorry about that. I forgot to check the license. I just went through the files mentioned in first message for source package linux-2.6_2.6.25-3, and the following GPL-licensed files are still present: drivers/char/dsp56k.c drivers/media/dvb/ttpci/av7110_hw.c drivers/media/video/usbvideo/vicam.c drivers/net/cassini.h drivers/net/e100.c drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h drivers/net/starfire_firmware.h drivers/scsi/advansys.c drivers/scsi/ql1040_fw.h drivers/scsi/ql12160_fw.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_boot.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down2.h drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_3410.h drivers/usb/serial/ti_fw_5052.h drivers/usb/serial/whiteheat_fw.h sound/isa/sb/sb16_csp_codecs.h # different location Also following 2 files are present without any explicit license: drivers/net/usb/kawethfw.h # different location drivers/usb/serial/io_fw_down3.h So it seems clear that this bug hasn't been fixed yet. ps. I don't know whether this bug should be reopened (which you oppose), or whether this should be reported in new bug (which you seem to want). -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#242866: info that it has *not* been dealt with
found 242866 2.6.24-6 found 242866 2.6.25-3 thanks maximilian attems wrote: Version: 2.6.24-1 the offended firmware is stripped in linux-2.6 since aboves metioned version. stop reopening that bug if you are not a MAINTAINER nor have any valid piece of info that it has *not* been dealt with. File drivers/net/pcmcia/ositech.h (which is mentioned in first message and marked as nondistributable at http://wiki.debian.org/KernelFirmwareLicensing ) has *not* been dealt with yet. It is present in both 2.6.24-6 [*] and 2.6.25-3, under GPL-license and containing binary firmware. [*] This is earliest version = 2.6.24-1 which I could find for downloading ps. I recently sent additional information to bug #383403 (merged with this bug) which shows that is has *not* been dealt with either. if you find additional DFSG violations report a new bug. This clearly isn't additional DFSG violation. I hope you don't continue closing bugs which has *not* been dealt with yet (unless you can show that such behaviour is acceptable by Debian, which I doubt.) -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#412950: Processed: info that it has *not* been dealt with
maximilian attems wrote: On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:39:58PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: found 242866 2.6.24-6 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.24-6 and reopened. found 242866 2.6.25-3 Bug#242866: drivers containing firmware blobs Bug#243022: ymfpci_image.h: Sourceless microcode without permission to redistribute Bug#383403: linux-2.6: includes nondistributable and non-free binary firmware Bug#412950: linux-2.6: [legal] the current kernel tarball doesn't respect the GR 2006-007 Bug marked as found in version 2.6.25-3. thanks Stopping processing here. stop this game or i get you blacklisted on debian bug tracking system. I do not like such threats when I havn't done anything wrong (according to my knowledge). I was acting exactly as you requested. IMHO you said that reopening should be done only by maintainer or by someone with info that bug had not been dealt with. I'm not a maintainer, but I did have info that bug had not been dealt with, so I reopened the bug with that info. I fail to see any reason to threaten me with blacklisting. IMHO it is you who should've been threatened with blacklisting if anyone, since you have insisted on closing bugs which clearly havn't been fixed. If I did something wrong, IMHO the right response would've been to point out my mistake to me, and not to threaten with blacklisting without giving any reason for it. it is up to the maintainer to decide if that is closed or not. If maintainer decides that bug must not be reopened anymore, that should be mentioned in the bug-report. -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383403: Doesn't seem to be fixed
It doesn't seem like this has been fully fixed. Source package linux-2.6_2.6.25-3 still contains e.g. drivers/char/drm/mga_ucode.h drivers/char/drm/r128_cce.c drivers/char/drm/radeon_cp.c -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#387783: cdrkit seems to have undistributable license
Source: cdrkit Version: 5:1.0~pre4-1 Severity: serious The current license of cdrkit (which was recently forked from cdrecord) seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions. This kind of a license is self-contradictory because on the one hand the copyright holder says that no further restrictions (beyond the ones found in the GPL terms) can be imposed on recipients (see GPLv2, section 6). On the other hand he himself adds such restrictions. As a consequence, we probably end up not having a valid license. No license implies All Rights Reserved, that is to say, the package is not only non-free, it's undistributable! (This is allmost direct quote from a message[1] which discussed another case of GPL + additional restrictions.) As of 5:1.0~pre4-1 there seems to be 26 problematic files: === Files with an unmodifiable section === cdrecord/cdrecord.c scgcheck/scgcheck.c === Files with other restriction(s) on modification === librscg/scsi-remote.c libscg/scsi-aix.c libscg/scsi-amigaos.c libscg/scsi-apollo.c libscg/scsi-beos.c libscg/scsi-bsd-os.c libscg/scsi-bsd.c libscg/scsi-hpux.c libscg/scsi-linux-ata.c libscg/scsi-linux-pg.c libscg/scsi-linux-sg.c libscg/scsi-mac-iokit.c libscg/scsi-next.c libscg/scsi-openserver.c libscg/scsi-os2.c libscg/scsi-osf.c libscg/scsi-qnx.c libscg/scsi-sgi.c libscg/scsi-sun.c libscg/scsi-unixware.c libscg/scsi-vms.c libscg/scsi-wnt.c libscg/scsihack.c libscg/scsitransp.c Those 2 unmodifiable sections are preceded by this comment: /* * Warning: you are not allowed to modify or to remove this * version checking code! */ Other restrictions are similar to this example from libscg/scsi-linux-ata.c: /* * If you changed this source, you are not allowed to * return schily for the SCG_AUTHOR request. */ case SCG_AUTHOR: return (_scg_auth_cdrkit); case SCG_SCCS_ID: return (ata_sccsid); There might be (at least) two possible ways to resolve this: 1) The restrictions are GPL-incompatible. However, according to a message[2] on debian-legal, Joerg Schilling said that cdrecord (from which the cdrkit was forked) was GPL, and so, if his public statement controls, we can just remove the incompatible restrictions. 2) Otherwise we need to go back to code which doesn't contain such restrictions. It's also worth noting that: since this fork was done with the intent of solving cdrtools licensing issues, it is of capital importance that *all* licensing issues are fixed, or otherwise the fork itself will be pointless. (Quoted from a message[3] at debian-legal) This issue is being discussed[4] on debian-legal. There's also an earlier discussion[5] about GPL + additional restrictions. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00309.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00089.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00090.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00078.html [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00298.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#385115: Hypocrisy of Debian (was: Sorry, no more RC bugs for non-free data in main ...)
On 8/30/06, Roberto Gordo Saez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If this is the common feeling here, I think I made a serious mistake choosing Debian, because it does not follow my definition of freedom. I would like to urge to change the Social Contract to be clarified this in this case. I'm serious about that, it is no joke, because I feel mislead. When reading it I was thinking I was doing the correct. I was not sending those bugs because I am bad person, I was actually thinking that was the common feeling and the correct think to do. Currently, under my point of view, the Social Contract and guidelines do not reflect reality, they are just hypocrisy. This is a subjective view, I know, but I think I'm not the only person in the world who may understand it this way, so please, clarify. You are not the only one. I have somewhat similar feelings after I found out that the cdrtools-package[1] included in Debian isn't DFSG-free, but is still included in main. (Even worse, its license might even be illegal because it's GPLv2 + incombatible restrictions) This problem was mentioned in this list on _2004_ but cdrtools still hasn't been removed from Debian (see [2]). IMHO hypocrisy is perfect word to describe such behaviour. I used to believe that Debian only included legal, DFSG-free software in main, but cdrtools fiasco seems to prove that I was wrong. A recent message[3] from DPL only made this worse as it's titled Bits from the DPL: Freedom and etch and starts with As a project, Debian is heavily committed to the ideals of free software. That's not news to anyone reading this, ... In the light of the cdrtools-fiasco that is clearly not true. And in case your way of think is not the common feeling, please make a poll or something. Until this is completely clear, I won't be morally happy using nor giving my time to the Debian project, so you won't be bothered with those bugs again. [1] http://packages.debian.org/testing/source/cdrtools [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00415.html [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html DISCLAIMER: IANAL, IANADD -- Markus Laire -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
