[arch-general] Packages with non free licenses

[w9ya at qrparci.net]

Hey Greg and the gang;

Two comments inserted at the appropriate points below;

> On Tue, Dec 18, 2007 at 02:41:56PM -0500, w9ya at qrparci.net wrote:
>> Nonetheless, IF there is no clearly defined license especially when no
>> license document is extent on stuff that is meant to be used freely
>> (as long as it is not for commercial distribution), then why shouldn't
>> arch allow for a maintained package of these fonts.
>
> Actually i found the Mircosoft EULA:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/fontpack/eula.htm
>
>>From the FAQ:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/faq/faq8.htm
>
> Q: What can I do with these fonts?
>
> A:  For all the rules that govern the use of these fonts please read the
> end user license agreement.
>
> - Anyone can download and install these fonts for their own use.
> - You may only redistribute the fonts in their original form (.exe or
> .sit.hqx) and with their original file name from your Web site or
> intranet site.
> - You must not supply the fonts, or any derivative fonts based on them,
> in any form that adds value to commercial products, such as CD-ROM or
> disk based multimedia programs, application software or utilities. See
> Microsoft's permissions site for more details.
> etc..
>
> As far as i can tell after reading the above, Archlinux's way of
> distributing these fonts doesnt break the Microsoft EULA besides the not
> providing a copy of the license point.

Ah yep.... My point exactly. In my original message that you decided to
edit, I did say exactly as much. I am glad you agree.

BTW, *IF* arch is putting this on the 'core' cd , then yeah, we should
remove it, but the last time I did a full up archinstall, it was NOT on
the cd, so I am willing to bet that we can remove it easily enough too if
it has been added into the install cd.

> Adittionaly the license prohibits the package to be supplied in a CD-ROM
> form, which means that Archlinux wont be able to provide a snapshot of
> its repos in such a form as long as this package is lying there.
> I dont know what other distros (primarily Debian) do with this. I know
> for  a fact that Slackware doesnt provide these fonts.
>
> If that is the case i dont see a reason to have 2 packages, 1 in extra
> and 1 in unsupported.
> As long as Archlinux doesnt provide the fonts in a CD/DVD and the
> package  in extra gets a license it seems to be just fine.
>
>> Or put another way, I am hoping that this discussion is simply for the
>> purpose of finding a suitable way to deal with the license field in
>> some or a specific PKGBUILD. <- And I hope we are not talking about
>> some purity clickish deal like Debian and other distros that are
>> against this or that because it does not fit into some preconceived
>> notion about there being a NEED for a specific kind of license and/or
>> a NEED for providing a specific kind of licensing document. Those
>> kinds of things always seem to end up satisfying no one but a small
>> number of zealots.
>>
>> Arch has always been about a clean way for a user to get something
>> useful AND desirable. Let's not go off half-cocked on a wild goose
>> chase and end up not pleasing people by throwing good packages into
>> the trash heap or making things complicated, especially if there is
>> NOT a good reason to do so.
>> I just hope we can leave packages as they are
>
> Thats the whole point. Those packages cant be left as they are. Both
> packages available through Archlinux webpages, the one in extra and the
> other in unsupported, at least at this point, do not conform with the
> license.

You already said above that this package would comply/conform if a copy of
the license is included. I am glad you found said license. Let's just
include it and be done with things.

As I pointed out in my first comment above; I said as much in my original
message. (Although with your editing that is no longer clear.)

SO.... yes, we can all agree to just add the license (or something equally
appropriate), NOT include it on the cd if it has been added, and not get
all worried and fussy about things. Good. <- That *WAS* my point.

I am no longer sure just exactly what you want to talk about below. In my
original email I was quite clear about NOT WANTING to raise a fuss about
this and just add the license OR something suitable and be done with it.

How much more discussion do you want to do ? <- That is to say, why
discuss this if there already *IS* the license field and such in the
PKGBUILD.proto and license files are placed as needed ? (And *YES* I am
being rhetorical.)

Very best regards;

Bob Finch


> Call me anything you want to, but i doubt a zealot is the appropriate.
> Personally i dont care about having a purified Archlinux when there are
> far  better close source alternatives like it happens eg. with flash.
> My only concern is to provide the software in the official repos as its
> meant to be provided.
> Call me a pesimist but i think the day where problems will arise is not
> that far away, and as people here say i would rather cook now and not
> when i get hungry.
>
> As phrakture said, and im sure we all agree if there is way to get the
> same  results using only free fonts that would be best, so my original
> proposal  still stands.
> If anyone can contribute to this please do so.
> Judging by the votes font packages get in AUR this should interest a
> large number of people.
>
> Greg