Subject: Quasi-free development tools

From: Lee Olds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 00:09:39 -0700 (PDT)

Please forgive me if this topic has been discussed to death, and the
issues have already been resolved.

I have a question about distribution of development libraries like xforms
and Qt.

Both of these libraries are free to use for development of free software,
but require further licensing if they are to be used to develop
commercial software.

Given these restrictions on use, I understand that they must be placed
in the non-free directory, and consequently may not make it into some
CD-ROM distributions of Debian/GNU Linux.

Because the authors of these libraries encourage their use in free
software, I anticipate that there will be more freely redistributable
software developed (like LyX) that use these libraries.

So what should we do about packages we want in the standard distribution
that use these libraries?  I don't like the idea of linking all of these
programs statically.  But my understanding of the current Debian policy
says that the shared packages for these libraries must be in non-free.

Do we want allow binary only packages containing these shared libs
to reside in the Debian distribution proper?  Do we allow software
that statically links to this stuff in the distribution proper?

Do we want to exclude from Debian proper any software that uses a library
that is not freely redistributable (per the Debian definition)?

Personally, I think we should allow binary only packages that provide
shared libs, if the terms of their copyright/license allow this.

What is the consensus?

---

From: [email-masked] (Erick Branderhorst)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:29:23 +0100

> CD-ROM distributions of Debian/GNU Linux.

If they are free to be distributed they can come with Debian (or not?).
 
> shared libs, if the terms of their copyright/license allow this.

Personally, I think that we should ask the folks who created Qt and xforms
if they allow us to distribute their stuff and shared libs of it as well.

Erick

---

From: Juergen Menden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 12:24:03 +0200 (MET DST)

> shared libs, if the terms of their copyright/license allow this.

please do not include binary-only libs in the distribution. it to difficult 
to port them :-) esp with libs, where a real bunch of software might depend 
on, this isn't very helpful.

for xforms: we've already tried to convince the author to build 
a m68k package, but he just isn't interrested. this is really 
bad news. :-(

jjm

-- 
Juergen Menden                   | Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by me, 
tel:    +49 (89) 289 - 22387     +-----------+ are (usually) not the opinions 
e-mail: [email-masked]     | of anyone else on this planet.

Hi! I'm a .signature virus!  Add me to your .signature and join in the fun!

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 15:56:34 +0300

> on, this isn't very helpful.

I agree.  Also, we cannot fix binary-only software, either outright bugs
or, in some cases, compiled-in defaults like where the library files are
stored, whether shadow passwords are supported, which version of the C
and X shared libraries are used (we can supply the versions needed, but that
might force users to have several old versions, which are otherwise 
unnecessary), and so on.  Not having source code _will_ bite you, sooner
or later.

I also oppose having packages in the main distribution depend on
non-free packages (or contrib packages). It's OK to make a package that
uses a non-free package if available (for example, my own debiandoc
stuff can use the rman man-to-HTML converter, if available, but can do
the conversion even without it; rman is non-free), but it should not be
required to use the free package. If a package cannot be used without a
non-free package, then it isn't really free. IMHO, of course.

(Since "free" is an emotional word, for the purposes of this discussion,
I'd like to define it as "anything that can go into the main Debian
distribution".)

The main distribution should only include packages that we have complete
technical control over (as opposed to legal control), so that we can
port, fix, enhance, or otherwise modify it.

The free-but-depends-on-non-free packages might go to contrib, perhaps,
if non-free is out of the question?  OTOH, putting them anywhere but
non-free is deceiving the CD-ROM customers -- they get a nice package
(say, LyX, the GUI interface to LaTeX), but they can't use it, unless
they go get something not included on the CD-ROM.  I wouldn't be a happy
customer, in that case.

> a m68k package, but he just isn't interrested. this is really 

xforms is the reason I won't use LyX. I _will_ not trapped by a
binary only package again. I've switched to a completely new,
binary-incompatible operating system about four times, and except
for the last time (from SCO Xenix to Linux), I had to abandon all my
existing software, except for my own programs, for which I had source
code (not that it worked---but I've learned about portability now).

It's really nice to have a hundred floppies' worth of archived files
with no way to read them, when the program they were written with does
not and will not run with your new operating system. (No, I didn't lose
them, since I could boot back to DOS.)

-- 
Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]> <http://www.iki.fi/liw/>
Please don't Cc: me when replying to my message on a mailing list.

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 10:25:29 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> non-free packages (or contrib packages).

Actually, that's policy.  If you know of any main distribution packages
which depend on a non-free package, please file a bug against
ftp.debian.org.

Depending on contrib isn't really a problem as contrib packages would
be on a CD.

Guy

---

From: Leland Olds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:11:12 -0700 (PDT)

> a m68k package, but he just isn't interrested. this is really 

Troll tech allows distribution of Qt source, provided that you don't
change it.  They encourage ports of their library, but they do want to
keep control of it.  I think you are required to turn your porting
changes over to them before you can distribute the new source with
changes.  (See http://www.troll.no/dl/)

So for Qt, I don't think porting to other platforms is a problem.

But the terms are restrictive enough to keep it out of Debian's
distribution, as I understand the current Debian policy.

How to handle this?  I think we need a way to include applications that
use this kind of library.

-- 
Lee Olds
[email-masked]

---

From: Leland Olds <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 09:40:11 -0700 (PDT)

> 
> --==_Exmh_-1430670480P
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Juergen Menden:

As I mentioned in my other post, at least with Troll and Qt, we get the
source, so we can port it and fix bugs.  But we have to get the
blessing of Troll before we can distribute the changed source.  This
seems like an in-between kind of situation here, but one that gives us
a large degree of technical safety. It may slightly slow the release of
fixes and ports, but we have the capability to make them and have them
rolled back into the "upstream" product.

> they go get something not included on the CD-ROM.  I wouldn't be a happy

Unless it is statically linked. Yuck. 

(Do we have anything the links to motif?)

> code (not that it worked---but I've learned about portability now).

By allowing distribution of source, and encouraging ports, Troll
appears to be bending over backwards to accomodate the free software
communities concerns.  We will never be stuck without the source.

---

From: Rob Browning <[email-masked]>
Date: 31 Jul 1996 16:01:13 -0500

> (Do we have anything the links to motif?)

Yes, the GIMP, which is a great program, btw.  I have provided both
dynamically and statically linked versions.  Fortunately, I have been
informed that an upcoming release should expunge all traces of Motif.

--
Rob

---

From: Lars Wirzenius <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 03:33:47 +0300

Leland Olds:
> blessing of Troll before we can distribute the changed source.  

Sounds nice, but I think not nice enough to put Qt into the main
distribution.  Having source is a requirement, but not the only
requirement.  Not having the permission to modify it as we wish
makes it non-free.  IMHO.

I think it's really, really nice of Troll Tech to provide the Qt source
code, and I wish them well. But I don't think Qt should be called
freeware, and I doubt Troll Tech would want us to call it freeware.

Putting something into non-free should not be regarded as an insult.
While the world might be a happier place if all programs were in the
main distribution, we should try to achieve that goal by asking the
authors to change their copyrights, instead of weakening the criteria
for the main distribution.

> Unless it is statically linked. Yuck. 

Um, well, I don't think static linking is enough to break the dependency
on non-free code -- anyone who needs to recompile it will still need to
get the non-free code.  But it does solve the problem for people buying
a CD-ROM and not being able to use packages that depend on non-free ones.

If I had a lot of extra time, I might spend it on helping LessTif become
real. Motif compatibility is one of the major missing things for Linux
freeware, since there are so many free programs that require Motif.
Mosaic is perhaps the most important one, but there are many others.

I guess I've more or less exhausted everyone's patience with recent
rantings.  I'll be quiet now.

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:48:59 +0200 (MET DST)

> on, this isn't very helpful.

I wish the LyX team had choosen a different way to write their program.

> a m68k package, but he just isn't interrested. this is really 

That is really bad. 

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!		 | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:47:31 +0200 (MET DST)

> if they allow us to distribute their stuff and shared libs of it as well.

That's exactly what I did with xforms. And that's the reason why xforms is
in contrib rather than in non-free.

Michael

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 19:42:42 +0200 (MET DST)

> says that the shared packages for these libraries must be in non-free.

This does not hold for xforms. We are allowed to distribute 0.80x version
freely. However, I didn't get an answer about 0.81 yet.

> that statically links to this stuff in the distribution proper?

As far as I can tell statically linked stuff is okay, except for the missing
source problem.

> that is not freely redistributable (per the Debian definition)?

I don't like that. Lyx is a really fine peace of software. However, I'd love
to see a GPL'es xforms replacement.

Michael

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 96 02:37 BST

Below is what I've written in the embryonic new policy manual about
what is required of the copyright of a program and so forth in each
part of the distribution.

Ian.

===

All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form.
<p>

Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do
not allow redistribution of modified source code or our own compiled
binaries cannot be placed on the Debian FTP site and its mirrors at
all.
<p>

Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do
not allow distribution and copying for profit, without restriction on
the amount charged, or where distribution is restricted according to
the medium used, or where the distributor must ask any kind of special
permission of the authors, or with other onerous conditions, may only
be placed in the semi-supported non-free section of the Debian FTP
archives.  This is important so that CDROM manufacturers can
distribute Debian without having to check the copyright of each
package individually, simply by leaving out the contents of the
non-free area; CDROM distributors are encouraged, though, to check the
copyrights on programs in non-free individually and include as many as
they can.
<p>

Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) allow
only distribution of compiled binaries (and thus of which only
binaries are available), or where the source code which may be
distributed is not the complete source code required to compile the
program (ie, the program cannot be compiled using only packages in the
main Debian distribution), or which depend for their use on non-free
or contrib packages, or allow free use only for a trial period
(shareware), or are demonstration programs lacking vital functionality
(crippleware), or are only installer-packages which require the user
to supply a separate file to be installed, or which fail to meet some
other policy requirements, may only be placed in the semi-supported
contrib section of the Debian FTP archives (unless they need to be in
non-free - see above).
<p>

Programs whose authors encourage the user to make donations are fine
for the main distribution, provided that the authors do not claim that
not donating is immoral, unethical, illegal or something similar;
otherwise they must go in contrib (or non-free, if even distribution
is restricted by such statements).