Debian and non-free

Debian and non-free

[mjt]

Hi

IANADD and all that, so where can I read about why Reiser4 is unsuitable
for even non-free?

The way I read the license of Reiser4 is that it's GPL but one can write
plugins, derivative works of GPL, but keep the sources by paying money?

This seems like an internal conflict in the license itself; without having
paying money as a forced bribe of sorts to keep the source closed, it would
seem like a BSD-style license. BSD should be ok by Debian Free even.

So why is it disqualified?

Debian is often seen as the distro for people who like stability and security.
Reiser4 has stabilized by the bucket and at latest views will bring along
the strictest of security.

It would be a shame if Debian users, such as I, would have to continue
bootstrapping Debian onto Reiser4 instead of just installing.
And there are a lot of Debian users out there as a target audience.

Does Debian have anything against third party installers which would use
Reiser4? Probably not? Considering the centuries it would take for Debian
to validate Reiser4 for installer-inclusion.

-- 
mjt

Re: Debian and non-free

[Redeeman]

On Sun, 2004-04-25 at 16:52, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
> Hi
> 
> IANADD and all that, so where can I read about why Reiser4 is unsuitable
> for even non-free?

debian in a nutcase :)
> 
> The way I read the license of Reiser4 is that it's GPL but one can write
> plugins, derivative works of GPL, but keep the sources by paying money?
> 
> This seems like an internal conflict in the license itself; without having
> paying money as a forced bribe of sorts to keep the source closed, it would
> seem like a BSD-style license. BSD should be ok by Debian Free even.
> 
> So why is it disqualified?
> 
> Debian is often seen as the distro for people who like stability and security.
> Reiser4 has stabilized by the bucket and at latest views will bring along
> the strictest of security.
> 
> It would be a shame if Debian users, such as I, would have to continue
> bootstrapping Debian onto Reiser4 instead of just installing.
> And there are a lot of Debian users out there as a target audience.
> 
> Does Debian have anything against third party installers which would use
> Reiser4? Probably not? Considering the centuries it would take for Debian
> to validate Reiser4 for installer-inclusion.
-- 
Regards, Redeeman
()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\                        - against microsoft attachments

Re: Debian and non-free

[Hubert Chan]

>>>>> "Markus" == Markus Törnqvist <mjt@nysv.org> writes:

Markus> Hi IANADD and all that, so where can I read about why Reiser4 is
Markus> unsuitable for even non-free?

debian-legal mailing list.

Markus> The way I read the license of Reiser4 is that it's GPL but one
Markus> can write plugins, derivative works of GPL, but keep the sources
Markus> by paying money?

Yes.  Namesys is allowed to dual-license their code, since they own it
(and/or have been assigned the copyright by those who wrote it).  So if
the GPL is not suitable for a company, then they can give Namesys
money, and obtain an alternative license.

This is the same as what TrollTech does with the Qt library.  (As well
as a few other companies, with their software.)

Or companies can just keep the binary, and their sources, private
i.e. for internal use only.  That kind of use is allowed by the GPL.

Markus> This seems like an internal conflict in the license itself;
Markus> without having paying money as a forced bribe of sorts to keep
Markus> the source closed, it would seem like a BSD-style license. BSD
Markus> should be ok by Debian Free even.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  BSD is much more
permissive than GPL.

Markus> So why is it disqualified?

Some people have reservations with some of the clarifications to the
GPL that Namesys has added.  (I have not read the clarifications in
detail, and I don't follow d-legal (yet), so I can't comment.)

Markus> Debian is often seen as the distro for people who like stability
Markus> and security.  Reiser4 has stabilized by the bucket and at
Markus> latest views will bring along the strictest of security.

Debian is also very well known for being picky about copyright and
freedom.

Markus> It would be a shame if Debian users, such as I, would have to
Markus> continue bootstrapping Debian onto Reiser4 instead of just
Markus> installing.  And there are a lot of Debian users out there as a
Markus> target audience.

Markus> Does Debian have anything against third party installers which
Markus> would use Reiser4? Probably not?

No.  There are many Debian-based distros, such as Knoppix, Libranet,
Lindows (or whatever it's called today), etc.  Debian has nothing
against them, and sometimes even encourages them (especially if they
contribute back to the community.)

Markus> Considering the centuries it would take for Debian to validate
Markus> Reiser4 for installer-inclusion.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if the installer for sarge+1 included
Reiser4.  All that's really needed is for Reiser4 to get into the
stable kernel, and someone to write (good) support for debian-installer.

-- 
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.

Re: Debian and non-free

[mjt]

On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:47:32PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>>>>> "Markus" == Markus Törnqvist <mjt@nysv.org> writes:
>
>Or companies can just keep the binary, and their sources, private
>i.e. for internal use only.  That kind of use is allowed by the GPL.

Licensing issues give me a headache, that's why IANAL.
A bit off-topic:
I thought the GPL allows the above scenario only until someone requests
the changes you've made?
Or is that only in the case that you're distributing a derived work
without source code?

>Markus> This seems like an internal conflict in the license itself;
>Markus> without having paying money as a forced bribe of sorts to keep
>Markus> the source closed, it would seem like a BSD-style license. BSD
>Markus> should be ok by Debian Free even.
>I don't understand what you are saying here.  BSD is much more
>permissive than GPL.

The entire point is explained to me by the nature of dual licensing.
GPL itself does not allow sources to be closed, even by money, but
a dual license would.

>Debian is also very well known for being picky about copyright and
>freedom.

Indeed.

>I actually wouldn't be surprised if the installer for sarge+1 included
>Reiser4.  All that's really needed is for Reiser4 to get into the
>stable kernel, and someone to write (good) support for debian-installer.

I started to do this about a week ago.
Got the bugger to compile, actually, but the resulting .iso file
looked nothing like a downloaded .iso file.
Guess the packages should just be added along with a directory
hierarchy or something. Something being the key word.

I haven't had time to do anything with it in about a week or so,
after getting it to compile, because of school, work and swordfighting, 
so if anyone wants to see what I've got and maybe give me a hand, I'd 
love to hear it!
Lack of time seldom means lack of interest and communal help eases
lack of time and increases interest, yes? :)

-- 
mjt

Re: Debian and non-free

[Hubert Chan]

>>>>> "Markus" == Markus Törnqvist <mjt@nysv.org> writes:

Markus> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 07:47:32PM -0400, Hubert Chan wrote:
>>>>>>> "Markus" == Markus Törnqvist <mjt@nysv.org> writes:
>> 
>> Or companies can just keep the binary, and their sources, private
>> i.e. for internal use only.  That kind of use is allowed by the GPL.

Markus> Licensing issues give me a headache, that's why IANAL.  A bit
Markus> off-topic: I thought the GPL allows the above scenario only
Markus> until someone requests the changes you've made?  Or is that only
Markus> in the case that you're distributing a derived work without
Markus> source code?

The GPL requires that you need to distribute (or provide, on request)
the sources to those to whom you provide the binaries.  If you don't
give anyone the binaries, you don't have to give anyone the modified
sources.

I think things get complicated for companies -- when does an employee
become a part of the corporate entity, and when is he/she a private
individual.  i.e. do you still have to provide sources to employees?
IANAL, so I can't comment.

[...]

>> I actually wouldn't be surprised if the installer for sarge+1
>> included Reiser4.  All that's really needed is for Reiser4 to get
>> into the stable kernel, and someone to write (good) support for
>> debian-installer.

Markus> I started to do this about a week ago.

Excellent.  I hope you succeed.  Unfortunately, I can't offer any
assistance, at least not at this time.  My pile of side projects is
already fairly large.  But if you make any significant progress, I'd be
interested in hearing from you (as would most of the list, I suppose).

-- 
Hubert Chan <hubert@uhoreg.ca> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.