Re: [gNewSense-users] Main xm-xr has been checked

[Kevin Dean]

I did want to bring something up for whomever is maintaining this set
of packages, and in general ALL packages...

gNewSense has removed packages before that include Free Software
licenses. The ATI radeon driver is one example, because even though
the license is Free, it requires the use of microcode. In the same
note, the kernel Linux itself is licensed under GPL and is known to
have "binary blobs" that we remove as well.

I'm sure Brian has skimmed xserver-xorg and the kernel packages
himself, but perhaps having someone with actual programming
understanding verify these as well might help us identify other
issues.

Or, if Brian would be willing to point out key things to look for,
that would be great too.

-Kevin

On 10/26/07, Kevin Dean <address@hidden> wrote:
> The SGI Free Software License B is not included in xserver-xorg-core.
>
> The package xserver-xorg itself is Free Software, being MIT.
> xserver-xorg-core APPEARS to be Free Software as far as I can see. My
> only concern is that the FSF does not have ANY input on the GLX Public
> License.
>
> My understanding of it is that it IS a Free Software license. However,
> the license is DAMN wordy and there could be something sneaky in
> there, perhaps an inquiry to address@hidden might be prudent.
>
> -Kevin
>
> On 10/26/07, Stewart Starbuck <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The SGI license is non free:
> >
> > The SGI Free Software License B, although its name says "free", is not a 
> > free software License. It has three major problems. 1. It restricts its 
> > patent license to unmodified versions of the software. 2. It terminates if 
> > your use of the software infringes copyrights or patents which are not 
> > SGI's. This is problematic because it gives SGI grounds to sue you even 
> > when you have done nothing to them. 3. The license requires you to inform 
> > SGI of legal problems with the software. This violates your privacy rights, 
> > and can conflict with professional confidentiality requirements, such as 
> > attorney-client privilege.
> >
> > I flagged this issue with libx11, but as pointed out by bbrazil:
> > If you grep through the source, you'll see that the only files mentioning 
> > this license are the COPYING and copyright. So it looks like this is a 
> > holdover from a previous version that noone has cleaned up, so this license 
> > doesn't affect the freedom of the package
> >
> > I'd do the same with xorg-xserver, to see if this is the same case.
> >
> > I'd do it myself, but I'm on a readers week, and have way too much work to 
> > do at the moment =(
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Chris Andrew <address@hidden>
> > To: Brian Kemp <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Sent: Friday, 26 October, 2007 5:11:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Main xm-xr has been checked
> >
> > Brian,
> >
> > Thanks for having the sense to ask for this to be checked.  It is
> > better to be in doubt and raise a bug, than to say the package is
> > free, when you are not sure.
> >
> > The xorg-xserver package is pretty important to the GNU/Linux
> > community, so it is essential we get our stance sorted on this one.  I
> > know some distros are still using XFree86, but that would go in the
> > opposite direction to Ubuntu.
> >
> > Please could the list consider helping Brian on this one.
> >
> > Many thanks.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > chris.
> >
> > On 26/10/2007, Brian Kemp <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > I finished this one up last night, but didn't update main.
> > >
> > > Can I ask a quick favor?
> > >
> > > Can someone else independently verify that xorg-xserver (or
> > > xserver-xorg, I forget, it's Friday) is free?  The copyright file is
> > > 44k!
> > >
> > > I believe it is free (The Bitstream Vera fonts have one small
> > > restriction about commercial use, but it is easily worked around; RMS
> > > says that is fine.)
> > >
> > > I bring into question the license from DEC, the license from SGI, and
> > > the license directly below it that looks to be the same.
> > >
> > > DEC seems to be in the same vein as New BSD, MIT, ISC, what have
> > > you--permissive non-copyleft and seems to be okay, but I'd like
> > > another reading for thoroughness.
> > >
> > > The SGI licenses does as well but it has a lot more terms and sections.
> > >
> > > I do not really see a huge chance that this package is
> > > non-free--however it's an important one and I'd rather have someone
> > > else verify my work here.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > > --Brian
> > >
> > > (No PGP sig, not at home computer, and no smart card yet.)
> > >
> > > P.S.> If anyone would like me to double-check any of their package
> > > work, just say so.
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > gNewSense-users mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Reasons why you may want to try GNU/Linux:
> >
> > http://www.getgnulinux.org/
> >
> > A great GNU/Linux distro:
> >
> > http://wiki.gnewsense.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gNewSense-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
> >
> >
> >       ________________________________________________________
> > Nervous about who has your email address? Yahoo! Mail can help you win the 
> > war against spam.
> > http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/addressguard2.html
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gNewSense-users mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-users
> >
>