Missing program and other problems.
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
I like Trisquel and really like that it can be installed off-line.
I like Trisquel's graphical installer. It is very easy to use.
If there are any problems with any Trisquel update, I know I can still use a live flash drive or DVD to install than update at a later time, seeing I do not need an internet connection.
Though I think I only had problems if I installed too many programs at one time.
I have been using Trisquel since Trisquel 8.
I used Debian before, but may have found a non-floss city building game in Debian main.
It was not even following Debian's policy. I think it was under an "Artistic license" which may still have been a non-floss license, but may have had a screenshot of it's main screen showing it was not following Debian's policy back in 9.6.0 of Debian, I think.
And this was before Debian switched to even more problematic licensed software.
I had an "ouch" Windows 8 before I very enjoyable deleted the "Windows virus like/virus" system, with Debian at that time, though did not use Windows online, thought I deleted the BIOS also but found out I may not have when installing Trisquel.
I did not like how I could not have the freedom to change even the "charms" bar's name, so I did not even like to use that "Loss-of-freedom-dows" off-line.
https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnuboot/
May have information about how to change the BIOS, though till I find out how to do that, hopefully quickly, I can update some at a time with a "freedom ladder"
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/the-journey-begins-with-a-single-step-climb-the-freedom-ladder
I think I also found Gnu/Linux with an "still ouch" "Apple iPod touch" that I do not even use now. Glad it let me at that time at least look at floss things.
Now the "troll maybe" part
There are two problems I found in Trisquel
"
xiphos:
Package xiphos has no available version, but exists in the database.
This typically means that the package was mentioned in a dependency and never uploaded, has been obsoleted or is not available with the contents of sources.list
"
And the minetest program since 5.0.0, that Trisquel uses, minetest possibly without the
libre.patch
from
https://git.hyperbola.info:50100/packages/extra.git/tree/minetest
so the main minetest client may download or recommend non-floss software.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
Minetest.net lists how to download non-floss software on their site that is in their repository. You could very problematically install it with the minetest client.
More information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minetest
So minetest may be the next "Debian" needing a liberty supporting fork.
though on https://www.hyperbola.info/
GNU LibreJS shows
"
blocked scripts in https://www.hyperbola.info/:
at line 526 of https://www.hyperbola.info/:
NONTRIVIAL: nontrivial token: 'document'
https://www.hyperbola.info/static/jquery-1.8.3.min.js:
External script with no known license
"
and at https://www.parabola.nu/
"
blocked scripts in https://www.parabola.nu/:
at line 544 of https://www.parabola.nu/:
NONTRIVIAL: nontrivial token: 'document'
https://www.parabola.nu/static/jquery-1.8.3.min.f466d94e3b75.js:
External script with no known license
"
so maybe someone can report these problems to earn gnu bucks.
https://www.gnu.org/help/gnu-bucks.html
Though just getting rid of non-floss software is a reward in itself.
There may be software that https://www.hyperbola.info/
shows in Trisquel Gnu/Linux that could also have non-floss problems.
https://forums.hyperbola.info/viewtopic.php?id=724
wrong forum now so, this this is why I'm putting this in "The Troll Lounge" part and not in a bug report part.
What a wall of text! Interesting nonetheless.
Minetest.net lists how to download non-floss software on their site that is in their repository. You could very problematically install it with the minetest client.
Here is the relevant part of Minetest's package inclusion policy:
The use of licenses that do not allow derivatives or redistribution is not permitted. This includes CC-ND (No-Derivatives) and lots of closed source licenses. The use of licenses that discriminate between groups of people or forbid the use of the content on servers or singleplayer is also not permitted.
However, closed sourced licenses are allowed if they allow the above.
(...)
It is highly recommended that you use a Free and Open Source software (FOSS) license. FOSS licenses result in a sharing community and will increase the number of potential users your package has. Using a closed source license will result in your package being massively penalised in the search results and package lists.
The "massive penalty" is that the non-free package cannot be found by default:
Non-free packages are hidden in the client by default
https://content.minetest.net/help/non_free/#how-can-i-show-non-free-packages-in-the-client
That may not be enough to comply with the Free System Distribution Guidelines, since the non-free package is nonetheless "included":
The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html#license-rules
Through a package helper, the minetest package in Trisquel could force the use of the "nonfree" content flag:
nonfree: can be used to hide packages which do not qualify as 'free software', as defined by the Free Software Foundation.
https://content.minetest.net/help/content_flags/#flags
That said, such an endeavor would make me feel bad. The Minetest user is only presented free software by default. Minetest does not steer its users towards installing nonfree software. No accident would lead to the installation of that software either. Indeed, a Minetest user must actively seek a setting and explicitly ask to be shown proprietary software for that to happen. Who are we to prevent her from doing so? Sure, we, the free software movement, consider she is harming herself, if she ends up running nonfree software. Nevertheless, in this case, she clearly declared her acceptance of nonfree content. Modifying the minetest package to prevent her from being shown the nonfree content is, in this case, working against her freedom.
I found non-floss software with the minetest downloader.
mcl_apocalypse
medieval_weapons
obdy
all of these do not have a license, so these are non-floss things that can be downloaded by mistake from minetest's content database.
If I found 3 non-floss software programs in a quick random search there may also be more non-floss games and mods that the minetest client will download even when
nonfree, desktop_default
are on.
I do not think these flags may work to prevent downloading non-floss software by mistake.
So changing the minetest client to not link to that non-floss repository may be the only way to prevent downloading non-floss software even by mistake.
https://git.hyperbola.info:50100/packages/extra.git/tree/minetest
has the libre.patch change the repository to a blank user set repository, I think, so Trisquel does not need to
force the use of the "nonfree" content flag:
Only change the repository to a blank one. Though just using the nonfree content flag may not work.
There may be many more non-floss software games and mods that may be downloaded, I did not check yet.
Though I may set my client to a blank repository till Trisquel sets it's next minetest build to not link to a non-floss software repository. So non-floss software will not be downloaded even by mistake, I hope.
mcl_apocalypse
medieval_weapons
Both are distributed under the Unlicense:
- https://content.minetest.net/packages/Furious_mat/mcl_apocalypse
- https://content.minetest.net/packages/hopefull/medieval_weapons
It is a free software license: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Unlicense
obdy
https://content.minetest.net/packages/Sires/obdy informs that the code is under a MIT license (more precisely, the Expat license) and the media under the CC0-1.0. Both are free:
- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
- https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0
If I found 3 non-floss software programs in a quick random search...
Well, you did not.
Only change the repository to a blank one.
And lose all the great mods (all free, among those listed, unless the user explicitly asked nonfree mods in an advanced setting) that make most of the appeal of Minetest.
Thank you for the information about the links and licenses, Magic Banana.
After downloading these 3 mods I did not see any license with the mods so I thought these are without any license.
I do not wish to lose freedom supporting mods or games.
Though without a license in the folder that is downloaded I did not know what these programs are under.
I'm glad you found out these are under a floss license. Maybe whoever made these mods should put the license with the program.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
shows
Why license notices?
The purpose of a free software license is to give certain rights to all users of a program. If it is not clear what rights you have given them, that defeats the purpose. Our practices are designed to avoid any uncertainty.
If a program has a copy of a license FOO alongside the source files, but doesn't have an explicit statement that “This program is released under license FOO,” that leaves room for uncertainty about whether the license FOO applies to the code of that program.
If a release has one statement that “This program is released under license FOO,” in a central place such as the README file, that makes the situation clear for that release. However, programmers often copy source files from one free program into another. If a source file contains no statement about what its license is, then moving it into another context eliminates all trace of that point. This invites confusion and error.
I did not find a license with the download files at the time when I downloaded these.
A user called rubenwardy at https://minetest.net may be working on fixing some ContentDB problems.
"
I have updated ContentDB to automatically check whether new packages contain a license file. I'll be working on tooling to allow us to find already approved packages that do not have a license file in the .zip.
"
that information is shown here.
https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=30107
Also a user called Blockhead has information about why all the mods/textures anyone uploads needs a license.
As well as information about mods and textures under the AGPL3 or AGPL3+ license.
A user called rubenwardy at https://minetest.net may be working on fixing some ContentDB problems.
Great. Thank you for your involvement.