Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On 6/2/19 2:59 AM, Ike Devolder wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 22:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public
> wrote:
>> On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> You don't seem to
> explain why you need to ask in your email.
Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid
reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no
difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.
>>>
>>> Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick
>>> look,
>>> I'd say no.
>>
>> The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using
>> /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software
>> download.
>>
>> Assuming it's the same as the one here:
>> https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/
>>
>> It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment
>> on
>> the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as
>> a
>> repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/
>> This should probably be removed too.
>>
>> Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos,
>> but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such
>> software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do
>> so.
>> As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is
>> the
>> case here, that permission can be added to the
>> /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in
>> the
>> AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally
>> redistributable,
>> either in personally hosted repos or [community].
>>
>> See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation.
>> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h=packages/teamspeak3
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar
>> of
>> Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke
>> that
>> no one cares about.
>>
>> And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's
>> being
>> distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi-
>> member
>> organization.
>>
>
> If that's what it requires, I can get a written consent we can re-
> distribute vivaldi. I asked them before putting it in my personal repo,
> if I was allowed to do that.
Cool -- if you have that permission, then there's no reason not to put
it in the AUR package too, though. :)
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 12:12 +0200, Ike Devolder wrote: > 3 years have passed since I first proposed to bring vivaldi into > community. Now there is a clear differentiation between what vivaldi > offers out-of-the box compared to other browsers. > > Vivaldi offers a ton of customisation features out of the box, and is > also able to just use the chrome/ium addons from the chrome webstore. > > Personally I'm using vivaldi as my main browser since somewhere in > 2015 > (shortly after the first beta was released) and the key features no > other browser currently offers are: > - webpanels > - quick commands > - tabtiling > - tabstacking > - tabbar positioning > > I'll bring it in the same way as with opera, where you have the > webbrowser + separate packge with libffmpeg.so to allow the playback > of > proprietary formats like mp4. As stated by some on IRC I could just have dropped in the repos and be done with it. No one would have complained I guess. But to be fair, I personally think you have the right to know I want to maintain a package for proprietary software. And if there is a consensus against it I will definatly not package the proprietary stoftware in our repos. And thanks to the constructive input I will make sure it is obvious we have the rights for redistribution. That was also mostly my goal, get input if I'm missing something or overlooked something before bringing it in. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 22:11 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> > > > You don't seem to
> > > > explain why you need to ask in your email.
> > >
> > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid
> > > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no
> > > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.
> > >
> >
> > Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick
> > look,
> > I'd say no.
>
> The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using
> /usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software
> download.
>
> Assuming it's the same as the one here:
> https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/
>
> It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment
> on
> the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as
> a
> repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/
> This should probably be removed too.
>
> Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos,
> but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such
> software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do
> so.
> As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is
> the
> case here, that permission can be added to the
> /usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in
> the
> AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally
> redistributable,
> either in personally hosted repos or [community].
>
> See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation.
> https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h=packages/teamspeak3
>
> ...
>
> Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar
> of
> Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke
> that
> no one cares about.
>
> And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's
> being
> distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi-
> member
> organization.
>
If that's what it requires, I can get a written consent we can re-
distribute vivaldi. I asked them before putting it in my personal repo,
if I was allowed to do that.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On 6/1/19 5:43 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote:
>> On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>>> You don't seem to
>>> explain why you need to ask in your email.
>>
>> Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid
>> reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no
>> difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera.
>>
>
> Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick look,
> I'd say no.
The license for the AUR package appears to be somehow extracted using
/usr/bin/strings from one of the binary files in the software download.
Assuming it's the same as the one here:
https://vivaldi.com/privacy/vivaldi-end-user-license-agreement/
It's absolutely illegal to redistribute it. As per the pinned comment on
the AUR package, it is also available and illegally redistributed as a
repackaged pacman package here: https://repo.herecura.eu/
This should probably be removed too.
Note: there are other proprietary packages shipped in the Arch repos,
but on the unusual occasion where we deem it fitting to provide such
software, we have written authorization from the rights-holders to do so.
As far as I can tell, that is not the case here. If and when it is the
case here, that permission can be added to the
/usr/share/licenses/${pkgname}/ directory of the vivaldi package in the
AUR, to signify that the prebuilt packages are legally redistributable,
either in personally hosted repos or [community].
See the teamspeak3 package for an example implementation.
https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/community.git/tree/trunk/PERMISSION.eml?h=packages/teamspeak3
...
Just because we are not an FSDG distribution which prays at the altar of
Richard Stallman doesn't mean licensing is some sort of silly joke that
no one cares about.
And I don't think it makes sense to say this matters less, if it's being
distributed from someone's personal repo instead of from a multi-member
organization.
--
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On 2/6/19 1:53 am, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: >> You don't seem to >> explain why you need to ask in your email. > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera. > Does the license allow us to have it in the repos? After a quick look, I'd say no. A
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:06 +0200, Andreas Radke via arch-dev-public wrote: > Am Sat, 01 Jun 2019 17:53:58 +0200 > schrieb Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public > : > > > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > You don't seem to > > > explain why you need to ask in your email. > > > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid > > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no > > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera. > > Crap. There's no reason to support any closed browser at all. We are > still an Open Source Linux distribution. Sure we have a relaxed > policy > adding closed source packages and blobs wherever needed to support > hardware. > > But there's no reason to support spying tools like closed source > browsers! > > -Andy I understand your sentiment, but just being harsh does not contribute to a solution. To be honest, our beloved "open source" browsers are far from holy in terms of data collection. I don't think we should try to be holier than the pope here. And also note there is genuine requests from users to add it to the official repos. Also, I'm just trying to be nice here about adding something proprietary. Instead of just dropping it in the repo's an be done with it. And I'm still convinced that Vivaldi offers more unique features that are very usefull compared to what we ship now in terms of web browsers. But if most of the Arch Linux group is against adding it, I will honor that. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
Am Sat, 01 Jun 2019 17:53:58 +0200 schrieb Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public : > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > You don't seem to > > explain why you need to ask in your email. > > Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid > reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no > difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera. Crap. There's no reason to support any closed browser at all. We are still an Open Source Linux distribution. Sure we have a relaxed policy adding closed source packages and blobs wherever needed to support hardware. But there's no reason to support spying tools like closed source browsers! -Andy pgpmW0XDlZgdn.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 21:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > You don't seem to > explain why you need to ask in your email. Because it is proprietary and I explain that now there is a valid reason compared to 3 years ago where there was practically no difference between vivaldi, chromium and opera. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [arch-dev-public] bringing vivaldi browser to community
On 1/6/19 8:12 pm, Ike Devolder via arch-dev-public wrote: > 3 years have passed since I first proposed to bring vivaldi into > community. Now there is a clear differentiation between what vivaldi > offers out-of-the box compared to other browsers. > > Vivaldi offers a ton of customisation features out of the box, and is > also able to just use the chrome/ium addons from the chrome webstore. > > Personally I'm using vivaldi as my main browser since somewhere in 2015 > (shortly after the first beta was released) and the key features no > other browser currently offers are: > - webpanels > - quick commands > - tabtiling > - tabstacking > - tabbar positioning > > I'll bring it in the same way as with opera, where you have the > webbrowser + separate packge with libffmpeg.so to allow the playback of > proprietary formats like mp4. > Does the license allow us to distribute it? And dozens of packages get added to [community] a week. Why are you asking here unless you think there will be an issue? You don't seem to explain why you need to ask in your email. Allan
