Debian Bug report logs - #171659
glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Brian M. Carlson" <karlsson@hal-pc.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: glibc: contains non-free docs and perhaps non-free code

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 05:45:09 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: glibc
Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
Severity: serious
Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2

debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
the package. Additionally, the copyright file contains the following:

   * The code to support Sun RPC is taken verbatim from Sun's
     RPCSRC-4.0 distribution, and is covered by this copyright:

               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.

The license places restrictions on distribution as an independent work,
failing DFSG 1. It also fails DFSG 3 because it prohibits distribution
of modifications of the original work as modifications (as opposed to a
new project).

          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.

               Sun Microsystems, Inc.
               2550 Garcia Avenue
               Mountain View, California  94043



-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux stonewall 2.4.19ck #1 Wed Nov 13 04:03:59 UTC 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8


-- 
Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 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

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

To: "Brian M. Carlson" <karlsson@hal-pc.org>, 171659@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#171659: glibc: contains non-free docs and perhaps non-free code

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 06:43:08 -0600

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:45:09AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Package: glibc
> Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2
> 
> debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
> License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
> the package.

Despite its coverage in DWN, I don't think that the discussion has
reached anywhere near the level of conclusiveness to merit the filing of
serious bugs yet. As far as I can see, all that happened was that Walter
Landry decided that it contained a non-free clause ("may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control ..."), and nobody disagreed
right away. Personally I cannot see how that clause can be read as a use
restriction (it explicitly talks about "the copies you make or
distribute"), and I don't think the clause mentioned is qualitatively
different from the GPL's restrictions on distribution.

-- 
Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Message #15 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Brian M. Carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx>

To: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>

Cc: "Brian M. Carlson" <karlsson@hal-pc.org>, 171659@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#171659: glibc: contains non-free docs and perhaps non-free code

Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 18:03:36 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:43:08AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:45:09AM +0000, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Package: glibc
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2
> > 
> > debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
> > License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
> > the package.
> 
> Despite its coverage in DWN, I don't think that the discussion has
> reached anywhere near the level of conclusiveness to merit the filing of
> serious bugs yet. As far as I can see, all that happened was that Walter
> Landry decided that it contained a non-free clause ("may not use
> technical measures to obstruct or control ..."), and nobody disagreed
> right away. Personally I cannot see how that clause can be read as a use
> restriction (it explicitly talks about "the copies you make or
> distribute"), and I don't think the clause mentioned is qualitatively
> different from the GPL's restrictions on distribution.

I don't read DWN (at least not very often). Also, IIRC, Branden Robinson agreed,
and I also concur (although I am not a DD). The section 4K also makes it
non-free in addition because you may not substantially alter the Ode to My
Goldfish. :-) Also, if the History section contains anything but the
normal changelog, then the license is also non-free. It is begging to be
abused.

In addition, there is the point of the Sun RPC code, which is totally
unrelated and would, on its face, merit filing a serious bug anyway.

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.ath.cx> 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

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>

To: "Brian M. Carlson" <karlsson@hal-pc.org>, 171659@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#171659: glibc: contains non-free docs and perhaps non-free code

Date: 05 Dec 2002 08:45:21 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 00:45, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> Package: glibc
> Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
> Severity: serious
> Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2
> 
> debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
> License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
> the package. Additionally, the copyright file contains the following:
> 
>    * The code to support Sun RPC is taken verbatim from Sun's
>      RPCSRC-4.0 distribution, and is covered by this copyright:

I'm talking with upstream about this.

In future, please don't file multiple issues in one bug - The GFDL issue
is very different that the SunRPC license issue.  (And even if there was
no big difference, one fix could not resolve both problems)

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

-- 
When you get to the heart,
use a knife and fork.
 - From instructions on how to eat an artichoke.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #25 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>

To: Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>, 171659@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Brian M. Carlson" <karlsson@hal-pc.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#171659: glibc: contains non-free docs and perhaps non-free code

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:31:42 +0900

At 05 Dec 2002 08:45:21 -0500,
Jeff Bailey wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 00:45, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > Package: glibc
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2002-12-04
> > Severity: serious
> > Justification: Policy 2.1.1, 2.1.2
> > 
> > debian-legal has recently decided that the GNU Free Documentation
> > License is non-free. Therefore, at least libc.info* must be removed from
> > the package. Additionally, the copyright file contains the following:
> > 
> >    * The code to support Sun RPC is taken verbatim from Sun's
> >      RPCSRC-4.0 distribution, and is covered by this copyright:
> 
> I'm talking with upstream about this.

What the current status is this ?

-- gotom

Message #36 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>

To: 171659@bugs.debian.org, 171659-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: status of this bug report ?

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 15:09:53 +0900

Hi,

I've been looking at this bug report, but the SunRPC code 
seems to restrict only the redistribution of modified work 
as SunRPC itself, and does not restrict redistribution as 
glibc, and I would have thought that shouldn't be a problem.

This bug seems to have stagnated, what is going on with this bug ?



regards,
	junichi

Message #44 received at 171659@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jeff Bailey <jbailey@nisa.net>

To: Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp>, 171659@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 171659-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#171659: status of this bug report ?

Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 05:38:38 -0800

On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 03:09:53PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:

> I've been looking at this bug report, but the SunRPC code 
> seems to restrict only the redistribution of modified work 
> as SunRPC itself, and does not restrict redistribution as 
> glibc, and I would have thought that shouldn't be a problem.

> This bug seems to have stagnated, what is going on with this bug ?

As I noted in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-glibc/2003/debian-glibc-200301/msg00291.html

this is on my list of things to hack on in March.  Interested parties
are welcome to take this off of my hands before then. =)

I'm only considering this bug for the SunRPC stuff.  I will retitle it
soon to that effect.  If people want to consider other non-Free things
in glibc, they need to file separate bugs.

Tks,
Jeff Bailey

Message #56 received at 171659-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Guido Guenther <agx@debian.org>

To: 171659-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: new bugnumbers

Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:43:23 +0100

Hi,
I cloned one bug too much, so I'm closing this one. The new bugnumbers
are:
 #181494: GNU Free Documentation License is non-free 	(serious)
 #181493: glibc: Sun RPC code is non-free		(important)	
Sorry for the confusion.
 -- Guido

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.