Package non-free trisquel 9

8 réponses [Dernière contribution]
augustoborin
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 08/29/2016

Hello,

I installed the vrms package directly from debian, since trisquel didn't have it in the archives. This package checks for other non-free packages. I'm not sure if it is effective or not. The point is that it has 4 non-free packages in trisquel 9. That's the output:

Non-free packages installed on ...

fonts-ubuntu sans-serif font set from Ubuntu
fonts-ubuntu-console console version of the Ubuntu Mono font
fonts-ubuntu-font-family-console console version of the Ubuntu Mono font (transitional
i965-va-driver VAAPI driver for Intel G45 & HD Graphics family

4 non-free packages, 0.2% of 2429 installed packages.

I tried to uninstall once, but I lost a notification area with battery, volume and network. Does anyone know why these packages are installed? whether they will be removed in the future or not?

Thanks!

Magic Banana

I am a member!

En ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010

Those packages look free:

I do not know why fonts-ubuntu and fonts-ubuntu-console are in the non-free section of Debian. Does anybody here knows? i965-va-driver is in Debian's main section. I do not know why VRMS labels it as non-free. VRMS only checks whether the packages are in the "non-free" section or in the "contrib" section of Debian's package repository. It is useless on Trisquel, whose repository only includes free software. This has been explained many times on this forum. The last time was less than three months ago: https://trisquel.info/forum/vrms-0

chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/07/2017

> I do not know why fonts-ubuntu and fonts-ubuntu-console are in the non-free section of Debian.

Apparently when packaging these fonts Debian concluded that the Ubuntu Font License is not compatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. The packaging discussion is [here][1], and the issue filed with Ubuntu is [here][2]. The issue appears to be that

* "Canonical's trademark guidelines prohibit use of the Ubuntu name in commercial distributions"

and

* "the license grants no rights under trademark law, and yet it requires you to use the trademark if you make trivial changes"

which together mean that the trademark effectively imposes some restrictions on commercial use, rendering the font non-free.

Note that according to the Debian packaging discussion in the first link, even if the license were compatible with the DFSG, the fonts would still only be eligible for inclusion in contrib, not main, because there is another issue. The font cannot be compiled from its preferred from of modification without non-free tools.

FYI, I found this information by looking at the [debian/copyright file][3] for the fonts-ubuntu package. That is generally the first place I'd look for answers about why a Debian package is in non-free.

[1]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=603157

[2]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-font-licence/+bug/1167425

[3]: https://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs//non-free/f/fonts-ubuntu/fonts-ubuntu_0.83-4_copyright

Magic Banana

I am a member!

En ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010

Thank you very much. Do you know if quidam is aware of those problems?

Magic Banana

I am a member!

En ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010

I read the discussions more carefully. As far as I understand, the fundamental problem is the point 2.3 of the license. It would impose my hypothetical "modified version which is not substantially changed" of "Ubuntu font" to be named, e.g., "Ubuntu font derivative Magic", to both retain the original name and to distinguish these derivative fonts from the original. According to Ejectmail on bugs.launchpad.net, a trademark policy could then additionally prohibits the use of the original name, thus creating a conflict with the license that effectively prohibits changes that are not "substantial". Also, on Debian's mailing list, Joerg Jaspert notes
that the definition, in the license, of "Substantially Changed" is unclear. Since modified versions with "substantial changes" must not use the original name, it is a problem as well.

Sincerely, I am most concerned with the simpler problem: proprietary software is required to build the fonts. It seems to be forgotten in the middle of the discussion of the technical legislative details related to the name changes. Isn't everything in Trisquel's repository required to be "buildable" with only free software?

jxself
Hors ligne
A rejoint: 09/13/2010

"Isn't everything in Trisquel's repository required to be "buildable" with only free software?"

Yes. This should be reported https://trisquel.info/en/project/issues and an email to name at domain so the OP can get a GNU Buck: https://www.gnu.org/help/gnu-bucks.en.html

Magic Banana

I am a member!

En ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010
chaosmonk

I am a member!

I am a translator!

Hors ligne
A rejoint: 07/07/2017

> thus creating a conflict with the license that effectively prohibits changes that are not "substantial"

This is my understanding as well.

> Isn't everything in Trisquel's repository required to be "buildable" with only free software?

Yes, this is a problem too.

> [VRMS] is useless on Trisquel

Maybe not after all. It does not do what many people assume it does, but it was useful here. Debian is very thorough when it comes to licensing, so if they have a Trisquel package in contrib or non-free it is worth at least checking to see what the reason is.

Magic Banana

I am a member!

En ligne
A rejoint: 07/24/2010

[VRMS] does not do what many people assume it does, but it was useful here.

Indeed.