[arch-dev-public] Inclusion of RAR

[Ray Rashif]

On 4 January 2011 01:46, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
> I don't think we should provide a binary rar package in any repository.
> Distribution might be possible by getting a written permission from the
> vendor but the actual free usage is limited to 40 days after which you
> have to buy a license. Users might not expect this restriction from a
> package we provide in our repos.
>
> Also it doesn't matter if there is some actual drm implementation which
> would prevent usage longer than 40 days or not. Using it for a longer
> period will still be illegal.

It appears the author is fine with that as long as the user has the
license on the system. Full e-mail conversation (up til now) forwarded
below.

On 4 January 2011 01:52, Jan de Groot <jan at jgc.homeip.net> wrote:
> Well, exactly the same set of files will not suit a package:
> - we add a .PKGINFO file
> - we move around files (seems allowed though)
> - we don't distribute the Makefile and rar_static

I think he should know that already, since I mentioned to him we are
going to repackage for redistribution, and the package is going to be
handled by a packaging tool. But just in case, now I've asked about
this specifically, especially about rar_static.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eugene Roshal <...>
Date: 4 January 2011 03:02
Subject: Re: Fwd: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form
To: Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org>


Hello,

> (1) Is it the following clause from the license that concerns this
> subject of redistribution?

Yes, it is the clause about the redistribution.

> (2) This 'RAR for Linux' is a trial version of your product, so is
> still subject to the 40-day shareware policy. There is no DRM or
> mechanism in place to lock down the program in a Linux system, but
> usage after 40 days would still be illegal and/or against the will of
> the copyright/license holder(s), right?

Right. But if you provide all files from the original package then
user has the license.txt file and it is up to him to stop usage
after the trial period.

Eugene

> Hi Eugene

> Thank you so much for the prompt response. I just need you to confirm
> 2 more things:

> (1) Is it the following clause from the license that concerns this
> subject of redistribution?

> 5. The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may be freely distributed,
>       with exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not
>       modified in any way.

>       a.  No person or company may distribute separate parts of the package
>           with the exception of the UnRAR components, without written
>           permission of the copyright owner.

>       b.  The RAR/WinRAR unlicensed trial version may not be distributed
>           inside of any other software package without written permission
>           of the copyright owner.

>       c.  Hacks/cracks, keys or key generators may not be included on the
>           same distribution.

> (2) This 'RAR for Linux' is a trial version of your product, so is
> still subject to the 40-day shareware policy. There is no DRM or
> mechanism in place to lock down the program in a Linux system, but
> usage after 40 days would still be illegal and/or against the will of
> the copyright/license holder(s), right?

> Thanks and regards.


> On 4 January 2011 00:16, Eugene Roshal <...> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> No modification is done to any of the contents.
>>
>> If you redistribute exactly the same set of files as in original
>> rarlinux-4.0.b3.tar.gz tar archive, then it is allowed even if you
>> changed the packaging format from tar.gz to format, which is more
>> suitable for your Linux distribution. So yes, your redistribution
>> approach is OK.
>>
>> Eugene
>>
>>
>>> This is a forwarded message
>>> From: Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org>
>>> To: support at rarlab.com
>>> Date: Monday, January 3, 2011, 12:06:17 PM
>>> Subject: Redistribution of RAR for Linux in binary package form
>>
>>> ===8<==============Original message text===============
>>> Dear Sir/Mdm
>>
>>> On behalf of the Arch Linux distribution (operating system) project
>>> [1], I would like to know whether redistribution of the command-line
>>> tool [2] for Linux is permitted. The license itself does not mention
>>> redistribution specifically for this version of your product, so there
>>> is a little bit of confusion on my part. I apologise for not being
>>> capable enough.
>>
>>> A 'binary package' comprises the contents included in the downloadable
>>> compressed archive of the product. The compressed archive is simply
>>> downloaded by our packaging tool, extracted, and finally scripted to
>>> be placed in the proper directories on a Linux filesystem based on the
>>> Linux File System Hierarchy. No modification is done to any of the
>>> contents.
>>
>>> The end-result is a gzipped+lzma compressed archive (tarball)
>>> 'package', which is distributed to our users via our repositories, and
>>> thus mirrors across the globe.
>>
>>> Please let me know if such redistribution is OK. Thank you for your time.
>>
>>> [1] http://www.archlinux.org/
>>> [2] http://www.rarlab.com/rar/rarlinux-4.0.b3.tar.gz
>>
>>> Regards
>>
>>
>>> ===8<===========End of original message text===========