Acroread: Redistribution may not be allowed

[Tollef Fog Heen]

It appears that the licence of acrobat reader does not include the right to redistribute the software, so unless I'm mistaken, we're not allowed to and it should be removed from the archive.

[Reinhard Tartler (siretart)]

we've redistributed it since warty, but Tollef is right, we need to clear this issue and either clarify the licence or get it removed fromt the archive. Useful links and pointer are appreciated

[Steve Kowalik (stevenk)]

From my reading of the Adobe website (and I may be wrong), Commercial vendors are allowed to distribute acroread if they fill out and submit the Adobe Reader Distribution Agreement. Ubuntu may not actually classify as a commercial vendor, which means Adobe may not want us distributing acroread.

[Denis Moyogo Jacquerye (moyogo)]

Could a package similar to that of msstcorefonts be devised so acroread is downloaded from the Adobe's servers when installed?

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

Why not just sign the agreement? Canonical is a commercial entity. I doubt Adobe would object.

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

One of the key features of Ubuntu is that derivatives are free to redistribute Ubuntu in the same way that Ubuntu is.

Signing an agreement specifically with Adobe would be that that is no longer the case.

In this case, Adobe's intent is to get Acroread to as many people as possible and be able to point the finger and have a legal recourse against anyone twisting Acroread in ways that Adobe object to (for instance, rebranding it and claiming it to be of your own making).

I think Acroread is also in 'non-free', and is imported on that basis, so it maybe easier to let it rest and wait until Adobe or Debian jump up with some guidance and/or raise an objection.

[Reinhard Tartler (siretart)]

acroread is not in 'non-free'. We first pulled this package from marillat repositories and switched to http://debian-unofficial.org ones. Now it seems that the later doesn't provide them anymore

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

> One of the key features of Ubuntu is that
> derivatives are free to redistribute Ubuntu in the
> same way that Ubuntu is.

I thought that only main was restricted to those guidelines. In any case this is an issue that a lawyer would need to look at to answer properly.

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

A correction from Matt:

  <mdz> multiverse does not need to be redistributable by derivatives

which means that the package could remain in multiverse. Could somebody provide a link to the "Adobe Reader Distribution Agreement" and try to work out if it applies to "non-commerical distribution"...

[Paul Sladen (sladen)]

Downgrading the the severity of issue; it doesn't cause data-loss and because 'acroread' isn't in main, there isn't an immediate requirement to be able to confirm to deriviates that it is also redistributable.

If Adobe's lawyers come to Ubuntu then we'll have a quick answer; failing that, it will likely take _a while_ to get this clarified...

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

An excellent alternative would be for Canonical to distribute acroread in the commercial repositories on archive.canonical.com. Given Ubuntu's popularity Adobe would probably be delighted to have acroread distributed there, and since the commercial repo is not part of Ubuntu (not really) there would be no problem with Canonical signing the distribution agreement.

[Rolf Leggewie (r0lf)]

quoting http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/multiverse/a/acroread/acroread_7.0.8-0.0.ubuntu2/mozilla-acroread.copyright

You may make and distribute unlimited copies of the Software, including copies for commercial distribution, as long as each copy that you make and distribute contains this Agreement, the Acrobat Reader installer, and the same copyright and other proprietary notices pertaining to this Software that appear in the Software. If you download the Software from the Internet or similar on-line source, you must include the Adobe copyright notice for the Software with any on-line distribution and on any media you distribute that includes the Software.

This is a non-issue. Closing.

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

On the contrary the current package of acroread does not include "the Acrobat Reader installer" so we are not in compliance with this license.

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

Also according to http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/distribute.html Canonical would have had to sign the Adobe Reader Distribution Agreement in order to be licensed to distribute the software. Derivative distributions may (probably) also be required to sign the agreement.

Adobe Reader belongs on archive.canonical.com, not in the Ubuntu repositories.

[Andrew Jorgensen (ajorg)]

There's also this lovely gem from the license:

"You may not otherwise alter or modify the Software or create a new installer for the Software."

Which could be interpreted to mean that a .deb on canonical's site would also be in violation of the license. Either the .deb is the "installer" or dpkg is, in either case it's "a new installer".

[Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen)]

Will remove the following packages from feisty:

  acroread | 7.0.8-0.0.ubuntu2 | i386
  acroread | 7.0.9-0.0.ubuntu1 | source
acroread-escript | 7.0.8-0.0.ubuntu2 | i386
acroread-plugins | 7.0.8-0.0.ubuntu2 | i386
mozilla-acroread | 7.0.8-0.0.ubuntu2 | i386

------------------- Reason -------------------
(tfheen) We don't have redistribution rights
----------------------------------------------

So, removed. It might be reintroduced in -commercial, but that's for later.