Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
Hello, Thanks everyone for your answers! On 2022-08-30 21:39, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Ryan Pavlik wrote: >> The easiest way to do the tarball cleaning is with Files-Excluded in the >> copyright file, uscan will involve something (mkorigtargz?) that uses it to >> repack. That's a technical answer to the technical side of the question. > > Even better, probably: > > Files-Excluded: * > Files-Included: AmberTools I was not aware of Files-Included. This would greatly simplify repacking the tarball, provided policy/legal side permits. >> On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package the >> internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I have >> no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might gauge upstream's >> feelings by asking if they can provide a tarball with just the open source >> parts. If not, even if your interpretation of the license situation is that >> you can package the inner code, it may not be worth it if it's fought by >> upstream. > > Exactly. > It wouldn't be the first time that we package something that the > original developers never intended to, only to find ourself in some sort > of passive-agressive situation, with some sort of hostile upstream. At > which point, I would wholeheartedly recommend you don't even start... > > Instead, if they are happy with you packaging this, they might just be > happy enough to extract AmberTools and distribute it in some nicer way > not requiring identification on a website… Asking upstream seems a good way to start. This is what I will do. Thanks again, Andrius
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
On 2022-08-31 07:44:55 +0200 (+0200), Thomas Dettbarn wrote: [...] > Granted, you might be able to download the part, safely cut it out > of whatever proprietary software is around it, but the next > distribution (Redhat, Arch, FreeBSD) might run into the same > issue. [...] While not ideal, that would be far from the first time distros used the source code supplied by other distros as a basis for their own packages. -- Jeremy Stanley signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
On Wed, Aug 31, 2022 at 07:44:55AM +0200, Thomas Dettbarn wrote: > Chipping in my 2 cents here... > > > > > On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package > > the internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I > > have no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might > > I do. Remember the GPL's mantra: "Free as in speech". The software should be > available for anyone, > without any obstacles in obtaining it. To me, it is clearly a violation of > its own license. That's not what the licenses, including GPL, usually say, no. > Having to register to download software is not free software. It is open > source. That is a difference. No. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
Chipping in my 2 cents here... On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package the internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I have no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might I do. Remember the GPL's mantra: "Free as in speech". The software should be available for anyone, without any obstacles in obtaining it. To me, it is clearly a violation of its own license. Granted, you might be able to download the part, safely cut it out of whatever proprietary software is around it, but the next distribution (Redhat, Arch, FreeBSD) might run into the same issue. Thus, finding a way to make the AmberTools downloadable without the need to register is the better solution. Either by asking NICELY, or by making it available on a different website. gauge upstream's feelings by asking if they can provide a tarball with just the open source parts. If not, even if your interpretation of the license situation is that you can package the inner code, it may not be worth it if it's fought by upstream. (E.g. they may see their more restrictive license as "additional terms" on top of the license in the inner files, thus basically creating a non-open source license.) Of course I am not a lawyer, just noting that it's much more pleasant to package when upstream is cooperative or at least not hostile :)\ Having to register to download software is not free software. It is open source. That is a difference. (Also not a lawyer. ;) ) Thomas
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 12:00:39PM -0500, Ryan Pavlik wrote: > The easiest way to do the tarball cleaning is with Files-Excluded in the > copyright file, uscan will involve something (mkorigtargz?) that uses it to > repack. That's a technical answer to the technical side of the question. Even better, probably: Files-Excluded: * Files-Included: AmberTools > On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package the > internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I have > no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might gauge upstream's > feelings by asking if they can provide a tarball with just the open source > parts. If not, even if your interpretation of the license situation is that > you can package the inner code, it may not be worth it if it's fought by > upstream. Exactly. It wouldn't be the first time that we package something that the original developers never intended to, only to find ourself in some sort of passive-agressive situation, with some sort of hostile upstream. At which point, I would wholeheartedly recommend you don't even start... Instead, if they are happy with you packaging this, they might just be happy enough to extract AmberTools and distribute it in some nicer way not requiring identification on a website… -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
The easiest way to do the tarball cleaning is with Files-Excluded in the copyright file, uscan will involve something (mkorigtargz?) that uses it to repack. That's a technical answer to the technical side of the question. On the "policy"/legal question of whether it's permissible to package the internal open source in this larger source for the Debian project, I have no specific opinion but it sounds complicated. You might gauge upstream's feelings by asking if they can provide a tarball with just the open source parts. If not, even if your interpretation of the license situation is that you can package the inner code, it may not be worth it if it's fought by upstream. (E.g. they may see their more restrictive license as "additional terms" on top of the license in the inner files, thus basically creating a non-open source license.) Of course I am not a lawyer, just noting that it's much more pleasant to package when upstream is cooperative or at least not hostile :) Good luck! Ryan On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 9:46 AM Andrius Merkys wrote: > Hi Niels, > > Thanks for prompt reply. > > On 2022-08-30 17:40, Niels Thykier wrote: > > From the description you have provided, I would assume yes with the > > following assumptions: > > > > 1) By "Extract AmberTools" you mean repackage the orig tarball. > > Yes, that is what I meant. > > > 2) AmberTools consists entirely of open sourced files that have a > > compatible license. Probably it does, but I would double check that > > no non-free files made their way into AmberTools. > > Absolutely. > > > (Plus of course that AmberTools does not Depend or Build-Depend on any > > non-free components whether third-party or from ambermd.org) > > Right, this was implied. > > > For reference, I did not check the upstream site. > > ACK. > > Best, > Andrius > >
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
Hi Niels, Thanks for prompt reply. On 2022-08-30 17:40, Niels Thykier wrote: > From the description you have provided, I would assume yes with the > following assumptions: > > 1) By "Extract AmberTools" you mean repackage the orig tarball. Yes, that is what I meant. > 2) AmberTools consists entirely of open sourced files that have a > compatible license. Probably it does, but I would double check that > no non-free files made their way into AmberTools. Absolutely. > (Plus of course that AmberTools does not Depend or Build-Depend on any > non-free components whether third-party or from ambermd.org) Right, this was implied. > For reference, I did not check the upstream site. ACK. Best, Andrius
Re: Free component in a non-free tarball
Andrius Merkys: Hello, [...] My question: Is it OK to extract AmberTools from Amber tarball and package for Debian main? [1] https://ambermd.org/AmberTools.php [2] https://ambermd.org/GetAmber.php#ambertools Best, Andrius From the description you have provided, I would assume yes with the following assumptions: 1) By "Extract AmberTools" you mean repackage the orig tarball. 2) AmberTools consists entirely of open sourced files that have a compatible license. Probably it does, but I would double check that no non-free files made their way into AmberTools. (Plus of course that AmberTools does not Depend or Build-Depend on any non-free components whether third-party or from ambermd.org) For reference, I did not check the upstream site. Thanks, ~Niels
