Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
reopen 181493 ! thanks For the debian-legal people, this is the controversy at hand: Sun RPC code is included as part of glibc. The license, which is included below, prohibits distribution of the original code under its original terms, which would make the license non-free. Including non-free code into otherwise free code does not make the code free, IMO. Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE. Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction, modification or enhancement. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC OR ANY PART THEREOF. In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages. I'd like an opinion. M-F-T is set appropriately. On Sun, Aug 17, 2003 at 08:48:04PM -0500, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report #181493: glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free, which was filed against the glibc package. It has been closed by one of the developers, namely GOTO Masanori [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate message then please contact the developer, by replying to this email. This explanation is unsatisfactory. I think that the Sun RPC code is non-free, and I want an opinion from debian-legal. At Mon, 18 Aug 2003 02:28:48 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: This bug should be closed. OK, I've closed now. Regards, -- gotom -- Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x560553e7 Let us think the unthinkable, let us do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all. --Douglas Adams pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Fw: Debian-glibc! EX0TlC Iatina girIs in C!R/\-Z-Y ACTl0N! V A r9e1 KLO
Hey HfBDOVdJZZQ Debian-glibc MvgLz 5900 589
Processed: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 181493 ! Bug#181493: glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free Bug reopened, originator set to Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED]. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape media and as a part of the software ^^ That seems worse than the advertising clause. program in whole or part. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, so the library exclusion clause in the LGPL does not apply. Which brings us back to clause 10 of the LGPL (6 of the GPL), which prohibits additional restrictions. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#206531: Something to test with
I unpacked it, and check libc.so.6: -rwxr-xr-x1 gotomgotom 77728 Aug 21 19:08 ld-linux.so.2 -rw-r--r--1 gotomgotom 610436 Aug 21 19:08 libc.so.6 How to make them in d-i? d-i creates the libraries on the boot image using mklibs. If you want to build d-i by yourself, check out this: cvs -d :pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvs/debian-boot co debian-installer/build cd to build, and change the TYPE in config/main to cdrom. Install source dependencies (in debian/control as usual), and issue a make build. An installer tree will be built in tmp/cdrom/tree then. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape media and as a part of the software ^^ That seems worse than the advertising clause. I'm not sure if they actually want you to print the notice on the cartridge. But the license doesn't permit non-developers (mirror admins, for example) to distribute the code. Has anybody asked Sun for a clarification of the license, or tried to obtain the code under a different license? Or maybe the FSF has obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright notice? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#206663: glibc: some GNU/KFreeBSD fixes
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 12:58:54PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: At Fri, 22 Aug 2003 02:10:03 +, Robert Millan wrote: This patch includes a few minor fixes to support GNU/KFreeBSD in the file specific to the Debian package. FreeBSD's kernel (KFreeBSD) is not supported in upstream sources though (and won't be for a long time). I don't know about KFreeBSD, so please answer that freebsd-gnu is no more supported and kfreebsd-gnu replaces completely? It's the same system but with a name change in the triplet. freebsd-gnu was renamed to kfreebsd-gnu in config.guess to distinguish FreeBSD's kernel (which we borrow) from a full FreeBSD system (with its own userland). The k stands for kernel of; I also tend to use KFreeBSD informally to refer to FreeBSD's kernel. diff -Nur glibc-2.3.2.old/debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk glibc-2.3.2/debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk --- glibc-2.3.2.old/debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk 2003-08-22 02:31:49.0 +0200 +++ glibc-2.3.2/debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 [...] +config-os = kfreebsd-gnu There is no need to replace file, but only need to modify config-os. IIRC debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk is expected to match the triplet name, and was not parsed by the build system because not being named kfreebsd-gnu. If that's the case, then plase change config-os and rename debian/sysdeps/freebsd.mk too. -- Robert Millan [..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work. -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape media and as a part of the software ^^ That seems worse than the advertising clause. I'm not sure if they actually want you to print the notice on the cartridge. But the license doesn't permit non-developers (mirror admins, for example) to distribute the code. Has anybody asked Sun for a clarification of the license, or tried to obtain the code under a different license? Or maybe the FSF has obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright notice? Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. -Brian -- Brian T. Sniffen[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.evenmere.org/~bts/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. This in effect, violates DFSG #7 and #1, as evidenced below: A distributes a program developed by A based on Sun RPC to B. B cannot turn around distribute the program to C unless they repackage it as a product or program developed by B. B does not have the same rights to distribute Sun RPC as A does. (#7) Nor, in fact, can B distribute Sun RPC without repackaging it (#1). I'd hope that Sun meant something else by this clause, or that it's been cleaned up, but I'm not totally certain about it. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Brian T. Sniffen wrote: Has anybody asked Sun for a clarification of the license, or tried to obtain the code under a different license? Or maybe the FSF has obtained a suitable license and just forgot to update the copyright notice? Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is essentially MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone. We also have essentially the same license with ttf-bitstream-vera. I'd like to close this bug, but haven't had the time to make sure that I have solid arguments as to why to do so. Assistance putting enough of a case together for that would be appreciated (and we can include it in the copyright file for future reference) Tks, Jeff Bailey -- Breathe into my hands, I'll cup them like a glass to drink from... - Tattle Tale -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 06:39:47AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Sun RPC is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Uh, *all* tape media? Is that all tape media in the world, including that which I don't own? If it's the tape media I own, do I have to put this legend even on tape media that do not contain anything copyrighted by Sun Microsystems? I *assume* that this restriction is not meant to be construed more broadly than copyright law will permit. If it is meant to impact things that have nothing to do with the code, then this flagrantly violates DFSG 9. Furthermore, does on all tape media mean physically marked on the tape cartridge, or merely present electromagnetically, probably encoded as data? If the former, it's at least as onerous as the BSD advertising clause. If the latter, I don't think it's a problem. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. This violates DFSG 1 and arguably DFSG 5. It might skate through DFSG 1's backwards-bent wording if the sentence stopped at part of a product or program. But it doesn't stop there. You can't redistribute this code unless you develop with it. This requires distributors to be software developers, not ordinary joes who've never written a line of code in their lives. SUN RPC IS PROVIDED AS IS WITH NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF DESIGN, MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ARISING FROM A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE. Okay. Sun RPC is provided with no support and without any obligation on the part of Sun Microsystems, Inc. to assist in its use, correction, modification or enhancement. Okay. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO THE INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS, TRADE SECRETS OR ANY PATENTS BY SUN RPC OR ANY PART THEREOF. Okay. In no event will Sun Microsystems, Inc. be liable for any lost revenue or profits or other special, indirect and consequential damages, even if Sun has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Okay. For reference: 1. Free Redistribution The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. -- G. Branden Robinson|I had thought very carefully about Debian GNU/Linux |committing hara-kiri over this, but [EMAIL PROTECTED] |I overslept this morning. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Toshio Yamaguchi pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#206784: locales: locale-gen doesn't actually seem to generate locales?
Package: locales Version: 2.3.2-3 Severity: normal I'm a bit puzzled. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong as this is the first time I'm doing this. But I'm following the documentation and, well, it's not doing what it says it's supposed to do. bash-2.05b# grep '^[^#]' /etc/locale.gen en_CA ISO-8859-1 en_CA.UTF-8 UTF-8 en_GB ISO-8859-1 en_US ISO-8859-1 es_ES ISO-8859-1 es_MX ISO-8859-1 es_US ISO-8859-1 fr_CA ISO-8859-1 fr_CA.UTF-8 UTF-8 fr_FR ISO-8859-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] UTF-8 bash-2.05b# locale -a C POSIX en_CA en_CA.iso88591 I have run locale-gen repeatedly. The output is a bit cryptic but mostly seems to be complaining about the one locale that's actually working: bash-2.05b# locale-gen Generating locales... en_CA.ISO-8859-1.../usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:25: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:26: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:27: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:29: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:32: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:33: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:34: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:35: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:37: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:38: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:39: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:40: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:41: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:42: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:43: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:44: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:45: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:46: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_CA:47: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/i18n:1107: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/i18n:1313: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/i18n:1345: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/i18n:1373: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:10: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:11: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:12: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:13: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:14: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:15: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:16: non-symbolic character value should not be used /usr/share/i18n/locales/translit_neutral:17: non-symbolic character value should not be used LC_NAME: field `name_gen' not defined LC_NAME: field `name_mr' not defined LC_NAME: field `name_mrs' not defined LC_NAME: field `name_miss' not defined LC_NAME: field `name_ms' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_name' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_post' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_car' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_isbn' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `lang_name' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `lang_term' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `lang_ab' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_num' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_ab2' not defined LC_ADDRESS: field `country_ab3' not defined LC_TELEPHONE: field `int_select' not defined LC_IDENTIFICATION: field `audience' not defined LC_IDENTIFICATION: field `application' not defined LC_IDENTIFICATION: field `abbreviation' not defined LC_IDENTIFICATION: no identification for category `LC_MEASUREMENT' LC_CTYPE: table for class upper: 1564 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class lower: 1564 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class alpha: 3616 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class digit: 600 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class xdigit: 600 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class space: 792 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class print: 5144 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class graph: 5144 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class blank: 792 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class cntrl: 664 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class punct: 4120 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class alnum: 3616 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class combining: 2076 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for class combining_level3: 2076 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for map toupper: 14364 bytes LC_CTYPE: table for map tolower: 12828 bytes
Bug#206531: #206531: Problems building d-i after upgrading Sid chroot
The crash seems to occur in ptmalloc_init(). I haven't been able to figure out why exactly the segfault is occurring: all the register values look OK to me. I think someone with more i386 ski11z needs to investigate it. Sebastian reports that if he builds a libc.so from libc_pic.a using --whole-archive then the resulting library runs without trouble. So, that would suggest that the problem is in mklibs rather than libc. I'm reassigning this bug accordingly. p. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#205600: libc6: glibcbug sends to a black hole (?)
I got a bounce: This message was created automatically by mail delivery software. A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: pipe to | /usr/lib/gnats/queue-pr -q generated by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ultimately generated from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) local delivery failed RIP gnats. Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. Does it even allow Debian's mirror operators to redistribute Debian if Sun RPC is included? Assume the mirror operator never develop any programs himself. -- Henning Makholm En tapper tinsoldat. En dame i spagat. Du er en lykkelig mand ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#181493: Is the Sun RPC License DFSG-free?
On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright (C) 1984, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Users may copy or modify Sun RPC without charge, but are not authorized to license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product or program developed by the user. I'm personally concerned about this particular phrase, as it seems to preclude Debian from distributing software with Sun RPC in it unless Debian itself is developing the product or program using Sun RPC. Does it even allow Debian's mirror operators to redistribute Debian if Sun RPC is included? Assume the mirror operator never develop any programs himself. I was concerned about that as well. I think it would be ok if they were acting as an agent of Debian, but unoficial mirrors might be SOL. [But then again, I am not a lawyer, so cum grano solis.] Don Armstrong -- Any excuse will serve a tyrant. -- Aesop http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
debian-glibc@lists.debian.org
Package: libc6 Version: 2.3.2-3 Severity: important Tags: sid -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux ccs.covici.com 2.4.21-xfs #1 Tue Jul 22 22:06:22 EDT 2003 i686 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages libc6 depends on: ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-7The Berkeley database routines [gl -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#206622: libc.so script busted
On Thu, Aug 21, 2003 at 09:10:04PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote: Package: libc6-dev Version: 2.3.2-2 Architecture: arm Severity: serious This can't be good news: /* GNU ld script Use the shared library, but some functions are only in the static library, so try that secondarily. */ *** BUG in libc/scripts/output-format.sed *** elf32-bigarm,elf32-littlearm GROUP ( /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc_nonshared.a ) I guess we need to fix output-format.sed to handle this somehow. I think I posted to libc-alpha about this... or else I meant to. I've never found the OUTPUT_FORMAT line to be necessary; I simply delete it in my local builds. But that error is, IIRC, the result of some minor misconfiguration in the ARM tools. Yeah, I know, that's not a useful answer - but damned if I can remember what the problem was. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: your mail
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reassign 206531 mklibs Bug#206531: Problems building d-i after upgrading Sid chroot Bug reassigned from package `libc6-pic' to `mklibs'. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
