| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Logicien
Veteran
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 1555
Location: Montréal
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:43 am Post subject: Is there a Virtual Richard M. Stallman on Gentoo? (Solved) |
 |
|
I have not seen vrms package on Gentoo. Is there something that give of us percentage of free/non free softwares installed on Gentoo and the moral issues of those non GPL licenses.
_________________
Paul
Last edited by Logicien on Tue Jun 09, 2015 1:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
For the record I completely respect your right to build a totally free box.
Also for the record if people start campaigning to remove non-free software from Gentoo there's going to be a pretty strong kick-back on that.
There's plenty of room in this world for more than one licensing strategy. There is absolutely no reason why free and non-free can't live happily side by side on the same system.
Yes, I'm one of those "other guys." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonathan183
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Either you use only free software or you use a mixture. If you run only free software the answer is obvious.
If you run a mixture then just use per package license so you will know exactly which packages are not free. You could also just set free only license information in make.conf and see how many packages have a problem because of this.
For me that is sufficient ... knowing a % is of no value to me, I either accept the license for the particular software package or do not install it.
Ed: I'm currently running my desktop pc with @FREE freedist MPEG-4 CC-Sampling-Plus-1.0. I run emerge -pve world with @FREE and freedist license only to check what I would need to remove to run with free software only  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voltago
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 2593
Location: userland
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: | | find /var/db/pkg -iname LICENSE | sed -E 's_/var/db/pkg/__' | while read f; do echo -n "`dirname $f` "; cat /var/db/pkg/$f ; done | grep -Ev '(MIT|GPL|MPL|BSD|Apache|LPPL)' |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | There is absolutely no reason why free and non-free can't live happily side by side on the same system. |
There's one: if you are abusing the freedom spirit people have put in their free software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Krinn,
There is no license in common use which requires that, by using software under that license, one must not use non-free software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
@krinn again:
I'm on my phone or this post would be longer.
Only a few open source licenses actually try to prevent the free software from being used with or in commercial software. There has been software under the freebsd license bundled int Microsoft Windows without violating the license agreement.
There are more examples of permissive open source licenses but as i said above I'm on my phone and typing this way is a bit of a chore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't need to broke any license to broke the spirit of the license.
Let's speak about ubuntu per example, as it as shock me seeing them asking money for software in their packager.
While they didn't broke any gnu license they do broke the freedom spirit behind it.
Think about it: if tomorrow ubuntu is giving freely the source of gcc, but no gcc binary, they won't sell a binary of it. Fine, gcc license is not broken, gcc sources might even be include directly inside the distro.
But what if they decide to only sell a binary version of a proprietary console then and remove all free console from their packager? What if the sources are zip and no unzipper is free to get?...
You endup with gcc sources available, but you have no free (of money) console to use it in your system: this broke the gcc license spirit while still, the license is not broken at all.
But this doesn't exist no? It's not like if apple distribute open & free licensing program thru their proprietary itunes... While you could get i'm sure from itunes vlc for a 0 cost and i'm sure (ok i'm not apple fan, so stuff in "" are guess, i don't really know) even the vlc source code, "there's in real no possibility to have an itunes account without a credit card", something that would be no more than exactly like a DRM, and this prevent people to use a free (of money) software someone has made specially for them to get it free (not everyone own a credit card or bank account, kids per example). Because of this kind of centralized distribution technically you can get program for free, while in real it's not, even free of money, it's not free.
Google may also do that with their google market, i don't know, but history has prove one thing, if someone do something dirty and it's good, others start doing it too, so i suppose Google is doing that too with their market apps.
It's like people that point you to some url where you can get the source code of gnu program freely to respect the gnu license ; while in real you need to login (even it's free to create an account) to download anything. If people would like their program to ask your email to use it, it would be in the program license, and for the benefits of the author. It's a violation of the spirit of the license, and again like a DRM (without speaking about the pain that you will get next to that, as you start receiving plenty spams from their "good parteners").
As such, having properietary program next to free/open/libre licensing program in a system with that dirty spirit behind it is broking their license spirit, even if their license is not broken. And i would myself hate having my creations next to proprietary programs just to be use as faire-valoir for the OS like maybe ubuntu is doing, sure ubuntu is offering many free/open software, but is it really to promote freedom or is it only to not having an empty packager with few proprietary paying software to download?
It's amazing, but in this spirit, Windows have no limit to installing and using a free (open/free of cost) program (ok maybe no more with arm win8 from what i heard), in this case, Windows respect more the spirit of freedom than you may first think, as not promoting something is still way better than going against it.
For me, as amazing (see, i'm easy to amaze) as it is, even a free program could do that, as (still again FOR ME) systemd is carrying that dirty mentality (by offering to link free software with itself to link itself with proprietary one to bypass their license, by keep changing its abi so nobody can build on it except redhat and its ability to only works with other systemd tools to make sure you totally depend on it...). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Krinn,
That was a painful read and I know for a fact you can make a point better than that. What you typed shows a very incomplete and largely incorrect understanding of what Open Source is all about, along with some really terrible examples.
I'm going to go on the assumption that your most recent post was made when you were distracted.
When I get on a real computer I'll post something more substantial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry you couldn't get more of me just after france has been kick out 4-3 by belgium 
(specially when obviously, belgiums were kind enough with us to not destroy us with a 5 or 6 that they could had made easy) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | Also for the record if people start campaigning to remove non-free software from Gentoo there's going to be a pretty strong kick-back on that. |
Way to take it in a direction that wasn't being suggested, and deflect the thread.. ;) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
1clue
Advocate
Joined: 05 Feb 2006
Posts: 2569
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | 1clue wrote: | | Also for the record if people start campaigning to remove non-free software from Gentoo there's going to be a pretty strong kick-back on that. |
Way to take it in a direction that wasn't being suggested, and deflect the thread.. |
@steveL, I would respectfully suggest you re-read the original post. There is no deflection IMO. I'm discussing the 'moral implications' of those non-free licenses.
I'd like to also point out that I don't disrespect anyone who posted on this thread. I just strongly disagree with the idea of restricting a Linux distro to prevent non-free software from being used, or harassing users for using non-free software on one.
What people seem to forget is that much of Open Source was donated by commercial interests, either just because they thought the community could use a good one of whatever they had or as a way of paying for free software they use. Examples being pretty much the entire starting point of the Mozilla suite, Java, all of FreeBSD, and many many more.
Examples of open source licenses which neither require nor even request that you refrain from connecting it with non-free software include Apache and BSD. For that matter, many GPL-based packages have licenses which are GPL have specific clauses in the license allowing use and static linking with non-free software for use or sale for profit. One in particular which comes to mind is Java.
Assuming that programmers who write for Open Source are against the use of commercial software in any way is a huge leap. Software like Apache came around because business-minded professionals wanted a good web server in order to make money, and there simply wasn't one that fit their needs. They didn't decide to make a free version of some other successful piece of software in order to cut into a market. IMO that's a huge mistake made by lots of FOSS projects. They copy a commercial product right down to the look of it, and think that somehow their free version can be better. By doing so, they automatically set the bar at whatever their target is, setting themselves up for an impossible task of exactly duplicating the target product, only without bugs.
Apache is awesome because a bunch of people had a great idea and continued to improve it for great reasons. It became immensely popular because the people who wrote it did so because they needed that software to do the same thing that huge numbers of other IT professionals wanted to do, and still want to do today. They're the best simply because they are Apache Web Server and wanted that software to kick @$$, not because they tried to beat some other web server.
Consider software like FreeBSD and Java and the open sourced versions of Netscape software. That software was written by paid programmers for commercial use. The company designed the software, hired programmers to write it and owned the license. Those programmers understood from the beginning that the software they wrote did not belong to the programmers, but rather to the company that paid them. The fact that that software was later released under an Open Source license had nothing to do with what the programmers wanted. It was released because the owners of the software chose to release it.
Also consider in each case, the entirety of the software was not released into the FOSS community. Each company retained the right to continue to use that software under different licenses for their own commercial purpose. The versions that became Open Source were the point of branching, not a complete turn of events signaling the death of the commercial version.
People who contributed software under the FreeBSD license after it came into existence did so knowing full well that it's probably the least restrictive license in Open Source. The entire license revolves around the concept of proper attribution, nothing else necessary. The FreeBSD license seems pretty popular.
Consider another place where FOSS is improved. Let's say there's a FOSS project which is really good but lacks a feature. It's not uncommon for a commercial for-profit entity pays the developer for a modification which benefits both the for-profit company AND the free software project. In these cases clearly the writer of the software is both aware of and fully complacent with the idea of their project interacting with a non-free component or system of components. I've been a party to this.
My main point is that people get on a forum and suggest that all FOSS software communities must somehow battle against non-free software. It's not like that at all. If you work in industry you need to be careful about the licenses which do restrict interaction but in general industry gets along nicely with both FOSS and non-free software on the same system.
What's crazy to me is I've seen this sort of argument even on Ubuntu forums, which is a distro sponsored by/controlled by a commercial for-profit company which sells software to run on top of Ubuntu. These guys somehow think that Ubuntu got as big as it is simply because it was somehow better than everything else, rather than through corporate sponsorship.
I guess I can get off my soap box now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logicien
Veteran
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 1555
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
1clue,
I don't have the exact and complete history in mind, but Mozilla open it source code only after it have been put out of the browsers market by Internet Explorer. Is FreeBSD have been really donate to the open source community by any commercial interests? The Berkeley Software Distribution replace the propriatary code of ATDT by free one.
_________________
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 1clue wrote: | | Also for the record if people start campaigning to remove non-free software from Gentoo there's going to be a pretty strong kick-back on that. |
| steveL wrote: | | Way to take it in a direction that wasn't being suggested, and deflect the thread.. ;) |
| 1clue wrote: | | @steveL, I would respectfully suggest you re-read the original post. There is no deflection IMO. I'm discussing the 'moral implications' of those non-free licenses. |
Sure, but all the OP was asking is "where's vrms"; if you want to disagree with the "moral implications" raised by said software, do so.
In another thread. ;)
| Quote: | | I just strongly disagree with the idea of restricting a Linux distro to prevent non-free software from being used, or harassing users for using non-free software on one. |
And again, no-one suggested anything of the sort for Gentoo as a distro, so it seems to me you're reacting to things that aren't being said. As here:
| Quote: | | Assuming that programmers who write for Open Source are against the use of commercial software in any way is a huge leap. |
Assuming that's what anyone else is saying is just arguing with strawmen of your own concoction.
Not saying that's not based on what "others" have perhaps argued in the past, but I don't see what that's got to do with "anyone got an ebuild for X".
| Quote: | | My main point is that people get on a forum and suggest that all FOSS software communities must somehow battle against non-free software. |
My main point is no-one here said anything of the sort; only you. So you're arguing with yourself, at quite a length now.
On your wider point I'd note that BSD licenses count as Free, in that they're compatible with a GPL codebase.
| Quote: | | I guess I can get off my soap box now. |
Yay ;-) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logicien
Veteran
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 1555
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok,
there's nothing compare to vrms on Gentoo and maybe anywhere. I have the possibility to emerge dpkg and than install vrms using the Debian package. Will it work? I know what's in /etc/portage/package.license. For those who want to know how Debian describe vrms, here it is:
| Code: | Package: vrms (1.16)
virtual Richard M. Stallman
The vrms program will analyze the set of currently-installed packages on a Debian-based system, and report all of the packages from the non-free and contrib trees which are currently installed.
In some cases, the opinions of Richard M. Stallman and the Debian project have diverged since this program was originally written. In such cases, this program follows the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
Note that vrms is not limited to Debian systems only (which means that it also works with Debian-derived distributions such as Ubuntu). It is also not limited to Linux-based systems.
Future versions of vrms may include an option to also display text from the public writings of RMS and others that explain why use of each of the installed non-free packages might cause moral issues for some in the Free Software community. This functionality is not yet included. |
_________________
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hans1024
n00b
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 11
Location: Czech Republic
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
szatox
Advocate
Joined: 27 Aug 2013
Posts: 3131
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have not seen vrms package on Gentoo. Is there something that give of us percentage of free/non free softwares installed on Gentoo and the moral issues of those non GPL licenses. |
Every ebuild contains info about licence. There even are sets of licenses available so you can save some time enumerating them  . If you chose free licenses and then want to install any non-free software you have to change those settings to either allow non-free licences globally or explicitly allow a single package.
You can check your settings with:
emerge --info | grep ACCEPT_LICENSE
and
cat /etc/portage/package.license
Enjoy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Logicien
Veteran
Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 1555
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank's all of you including hans1024. Finally there is a VRMS for Gentoo. Not in Portage and Overlays but in Github. This answer my question about this funny and interesting little utility. I mark it solved.
_________________
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
