CC-by-sa reported as non-free

[kmvzxuwi]

Binary package hint: vrms

vrms reports packages under CC-by-sa (>= 2.0) to be non-free; this packages are (at least): human-icon-theme, tango-icon-theme and tangerine-icon-theme.
This packages doesn't meet DFSG, but since gobuntu (the "ultra-ortodox flavor of ubuntu") follow FSF guidelines instead, I think it's more appropriate to "ubuntize" vrms to remove these false positives.
Note that also CC-by (>= 2.0) packages may be affected.

[Matteo Settenvini (tchernobog)]

I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

> I also see autoconf-doc, gdb-doc, manpages-posix, manpages-posix-dev and
> make-doc between non-free packages, is it right? It sounds strange.

Forgive me for the delay, please.
Well, vrms is a debian software, so even packages with the GNU FDL are
listed as non-free (such as autoconf-doc, for example).

In the perspective that the ubuntu freeness policy is (or will be)
based on the FSF's one, I think that this package needs a heavy effort
for ubuntization.

[Andrius Štikonas (stikonas)]

GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not used.

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

> GNU FDL is DFSG free provided the invariant section clauses are not
> used.

Yes, but e.g. autoconf-doc uses the FDL and is still list as non-free;
this is because, as long as I know, software from FSF uses the FDL
entirely (invariant sections included).

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

Is CC-by-sa non-free?
How so?

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/04/msg00031.html

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

CC-by-sa it's free for ubuntu (there was a discussion on the
gobuntu-devel mailing list).

I know that vrms is a debian project, so that it's impossible for us
to send a patch upstream (unless debian itself decide that older
CC-by-sa licences are indeed free), but ubuntu can do and apply a
patch to the vrms packet without sending it to upstream.
It's annoying to use vrms and see a list of debian-non-free packages
installed on an ubuntu system: on an ubuntu system I want vrms to list
packages considered non-free by ubuntu, not debian.

[Leo Arias (elopio)]

The package is called virtualRichardMStallman, I want it to list packages considered non-free by FSF.

[Dara Adib (daradib)]

What about CC-BY-SA 3.0? Debian does consider 3.0 to be free according to DFSG, but not previous versions.

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

CC-by-sa is considered free for artistic content by the FSF, and the
packages listed as non-free by vrms contains icons et similia.

The meaning of "vrms" is indeed Virtual Richard Matthew Stallman, but
it lists packages considered non-free by Debian (that's because was
written by Debian developers and not by the FSF).

[Rogério Theodoro de Brito (rbrito)]

Hi.

The situation that you are complaining about is that vrms takes into
account the section of the packages.

In general, if the section of a package doesn't match what its copyright
says, then the package has a bug and it should be fixed ASAP.

If the section of a package in Ubuntu matches the policy of what Ubuntu
considers free and non-free (i.e., restricted or multiverse), then vrms
will work perfectly according to what the users of Ubuntu expect.

BTW, despite being a Debian Maintainer, I use Ubuntu exclusively on a
laptop of mine that I use daily---and I'm testing it with karmic.

There is, in my view, no need to keep patches to vrms confined in
Ubuntu.

I think that I will close this bug with a new upload of vrms (which I
hope is considered by inclusion in time for karmic's release).

Regards, Rogério Brito.

--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:52:38 -0000
Rogério Brito <email address hidden> wrote:

> Hi.
>
> The situation that you are complaining about is that vrms takes into
> account the section of the packages.
>
> In general, if the section of a package doesn't match what its
> copyright says, then the package has a bug and it should be fixed
> ASAP.

Or that this bug is actually "VRMS is incorrectly named, and should not
refer to RMS", since it is a reflection of the packages DFSG status,
not RMS's views.
kk

[Rogério Theodoro de Brito (rbrito)]

On Jul 30 2009, KarlGoetz wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:52:38 -0000 Rogério Brito <email address hidden> wrote:
> > The situation that you are complaining about is that vrms takes into
> > account the section of the packages.
> >
> > In general, if the section of a package doesn't match what its
> > copyright says, then the package has a bug and it should be fixed
> > ASAP.
>
> Or that this bug is actually "VRMS is incorrectly named, and should
> not refer to RMS", since it is a reflection of the packages DFSG
> status, not RMS's views.

Some points here:

* vrms has this behaviour appropriately documented (by Bdale, after a
  short discussion that we had on the debian-vrms mailing list) that the
  program has this name based on the original ideal of providing only
  Free Software.

* for practical purposes, the decision of what is Free Software takes
  into consideration the section of the packages: if a potential
  distribution would package non-free software in a main repository,
  then vrms would not be able to provide a description of which programs
  are or are not Free Software.

  Indeed, if a packager prepares a package of some proprietary software,
  how can a program detect if the binary code of that package is or is
  not Free Software? There are no syntatic rules for this, I am afraid.
  This problem is essentially of human interpretation---and, indeed,
  even humans can't reach a consensus regarding what they consider Free.

But suggestions and patches for vrms are welcome, of course.

Regards, Rogério Brito.

--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

Tell me if I've understood correctly: vrms should show me only packages that I've installed from restricted or multiverse?

[Craig (candrews-integralblue)]

Some of the information here in the previous comments is old/outdated or incorrect. Here is the real story.

According to the DFSG and the FSF, CC-BY-SA >= 3.0 is Free. See http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttributionShare-Alike.28CC-BY-SA.29v3.0

tangerine-icon-theme is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5... which is non-Free. Hence, vrms complains about it. Here's tangerine-icon-theme's COPYRIGHT file: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/t/tangerine-icon-theme/tangerine-icon-theme_0.26.debian-3/tangerine-icon-theme.copyright

vrms works by parsing /var/lib/dpkg/status. For each package, vrms determines if it is installed, and if it is, it looks at the package's section to see if it's in the "non-free" section. For example, Here is an excerpt:
Package: tangerine-icon-theme
Status: install ok installed
Priority: optional
Section: non-free/x11

vrms sees "Section: non-free" and reports the package as non-Free. That's it... vrms has not logic to evaluate licenses, it simply uses the section.

As for the solution, I think it's a Very Bad Thing that Ubuntu depends on a non-DFSG Free package right out of the box, and it's a serious problem that out to be fixed immediately (either by dropping tangerine-icon-theme from the default install, or changing the license to CC-BY-SA 3.0).

[kmvzxuwi (kmvzxuwi-deactivatedaccount)]

You've conviced me that cc-by-sa 2.5 is DFSG-nonfree, but the real question is: is ubuntu following DFSG?

Back in the days of gobuntu, ubuntu was officially following FSF guidelins rather than the DFSG.
And if I understand correctly, cc-by-sa 2.5 is considered free for non-sw work by the FSF (http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/).

[Mitch Towner (kermiac)]

Changed the incorrectly set status back to confirmed

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

please explain why you think this is opinion

[Rogério Theodoro de Brito (rbrito)]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz <email address hidden> wrote:
> please explain why you think this is opinion

Debian opinion != FSF opinion

Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of the package to
base its decisions on. If it reports something incorrectly, then there
are two possibilities (which not exclude one from another):

1. there is a bug in vrms
2. there is a bug in the packaging, where an incorrect section of the
package is declared.

--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog : Projects : https://github.com/rbrito/
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:37:20 -0000
Rogério Theodoro de Brito <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 08:37, KarlGoetz <email address hidden> wrote:
> > please explain why you think this is opinion
>
> Debian opinion != FSF opinion

Indeed. And != Ubuntu opinion too.

> Furthermore, vrms works by looking at the section of the package to
> base its decisions on. If it reports something incorrectly, then there
> are two possibilities (which not exclude one from another):
>
> 1. there is a bug in vrms
> 2. there is a bug in the packaging, where an incorrect section of the
> package is declared.

Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being developed,
I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked 'invalid'.
thanks,
kk

--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
*** I've changed GPG key to 6C097260 ***

[Rogério Theodoro de Brito (rbrito)]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz <email address hidden> wrote:
> Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being developed,
> I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked 'invalid'.

OK, Took the suggestion into account and changed things.

Regards,

--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{ime.usp.br,gmail.com} : GPG key 4096R/BCFCAAAA
http://rb.doesntexist.org/blog : Projects : https://github.com/rbrito/
DebianQA: http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=rbrito%40ime.usp.br

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 04:25:16 -0000
Rogério Theodoro de Brito <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 18:36, KarlGoetz <email address hidden> wrote:
> > Given this was filed against ubuntu when Gobuntu was being
> > developed, I'm tempted to suggest this bug should be marked
> > 'invalid'.
>
> OK, Took the suggestion into account and changed things.
>
> Regards,

Thank you,
kk

--
Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK7FOSS)
http://www.kgoetz.id.au
No, I won't join your social networking group
*** I've changed GPG key to 6C097260 ***