Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1033113 > unrolled thread

Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> - 2020-11-17 19:10 +0100
    Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> - 2020-11-18 01:50 +0100
    Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-11-18 22:50 +0100
      Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> - 2020-11-18 23:40 +0100
        Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-11-18 23:50 +0100
          Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> - 2020-11-19 00:30 +0100
    Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2020-11-18 23:00 +0100

#1033113 — Bug#974992: Licencing disagreement causes user confusion

Package: vrms
Version: 1.27
Severity: wishlist

Hi!

fonts-ubuntu is shipped by default on Ubuntu systems. It has significant 
reverse dependencies and cannot be uninstalled easily.

Debian considers fonts-ubuntu to be “non-free”, while Canonical 
disagrees. But vrms lists fonts-ubuntu as non-free also on Ubuntu systems.

Recently I have seen two Ask Ubuntu questions where users have run vrms, 
found fonts-ubuntu to be non-free, and tried to uninstall the package:

* https://askubuntu.com/q/1292336

* https://askubuntu.com/q/1292751

This situation is unfortunate. Given the difference in opinion, I would 
suggest that vrms does not count fonts-ubuntu as non-free when built on 
Ubuntu systems.

-- 
Thanks!

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033171

On 2020-11-18 01:21, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com> writes:
>> 
>> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/vrms/-/merge_requests/1
>> 
>> The idea is to apply the suggested exception at build time, but
>> only when building for Ubuntu. On Debian it would keep working as
>> it currently does.
> 
> I won't merge that, but I'm no longer the principal maintainer of
> vrms in Debian and won't object if the person who is thinks this is
> appropriate to include.

Ok. Merging it would make it easier on the Ubuntu side (we could keep 
sync'ing also going forward), but it's indeed a wishlist request.

Then let's keep the bug open until the principal maintainer has taken a 
stand. Looks like we both need to be attentive and not include "-done" 
when replying...

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033321

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

hi Gunnar,

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 07:04:22PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Debian considers fonts-ubuntu to be “non-free”, while Canonical disagrees.

the vrms package in Debian takes Debian's position and disagrees with
RMS, see "#537941: [vrms] GNU docs are nonfree, but vrms should think otherwise"
which is tagged wontfix for this reason.

So I don't think vrms should consider Canonical's opinion either.

But then...

> But vrms lists fonts-ubuntu as non-free also on Ubuntu systems.

I don't understand why this happens: if it were shipped in multiverse
or restricted, I'd understand, but AIUI fonts-ubuntu is part of ubuntu's
main section, which should be detected as free by vrms...

IOW: I don't see how vrms's code (or data) implements the above position
of Debian. Which leads me to another question, though probably rather
unrelated to this bug: where did you hear/read about this being the Debian
position? :)


All that said,, in a later follow up to the bug report you wrote:

> The idea is to apply the suggested exception at build time, but only 
> when building for Ubuntu. On Debian it would keep working as it 
> currently does.
 
I'd probably take a patch which implements this.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁       holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

Never waste a crisis.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033328

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi!

On 2020-11-18 22:45, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 07:04:22PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>> But vrms lists fonts-ubuntu as non-free also on Ubuntu systems.
> 
> I don't understand why this happens: if it were shipped in
> multiverse or restricted, I'd understand, but AIUI fonts-ubuntu is
> part of ubuntu's main section, which should be detected as free by
> vrms...

Right, it's in main in Ubuntu, but I think the meaning of main differs 
between Debian and Ubuntu. "main" in Ubuntu means that it's a package 
where Canonical takes responsibility for security updates, as opposed to 
"universe" which is a community concern.

I think the explanation can be found in d/control of fonts-ubuntu:

https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/control-0.83-4

It says "Section: non-free/fonts" also in the Ubuntu archive. And that's 
probably the reason why the adjustment I propose in the merge request 
makes a difference.

> IOW: I don't see how vrms's code (or data) implements the above
> position of Debian. Which leads me to another question, though
> probably rather unrelated to this bug: where did you hear/read about
> this being the Debian position? :)

In d/copyright of fonts-ubuntu:

https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/copyright-0.83-4

> All that said,, in a later follow up to the bug report you wrote:
> 
>> The idea is to apply the suggested exception at build time, but
>> only when building for Ubuntu. On Debian it would keep working as
>> it currently does.
> 
> I'd probably take a patch which implements this.

Crossing my fingers. :)

On 2020-11-18 22:47, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'd appreciate if you could paste the output from running vrms to
> this bug as well as the output of
> 
> $ find /etc/apt/sources.list* -type f |xargs cat

Please find two attachments with that info.

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033330

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 11:32:24PM +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> Right, it's in main in Ubuntu, but I think the meaning of main differs
> between Debian and Ubuntu. "main" in Ubuntu means that it's a package where
> Canonical takes responsibility for security updates, as opposed to
> "universe" which is a community concern.

ack.
 
> I think the explanation can be found in d/control of fonts-ubuntu:
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/control-0.83-4
> It says "Section: non-free/fonts" also in the Ubuntu archive. 

frankly I don't understand why you don't fix this on the Ubuntu side? :)

> And that's
> probably the reason why the adjustment I propose in the merge request makes
> a difference.

actually I dont see a merge request anywhere(???)
 
> > IOW: I don't see how vrms's code (or data) implements the above
> > position of Debian. Which leads me to another question, though
> > probably rather unrelated to this bug: where did you hear/read about
> > this being the Debian position? :)
> 
> In d/copyright of fonts-ubuntu:
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/copyright-0.83-4

ah, thanks.

That file refers to #603157 which is a rather old and which states that
a.) the Ubuntu Fonts License 1.0 is an interim solution and b.) that
everybody would like to fix the build system, so that ubuntu-fonts could
probably also go into main in Debian. Do you know of any progress on
these issues?

> > $ find /etc/apt/sources.list* -type f |xargs cat
> 
> Please find two attachments with that info.
> 
> -- 
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson
> https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

> $ vrms
>        Non-free packages installed on gunnar-ubuntu-current
[...]
> fonts-ubuntu                        sans-serif font set from Ubuntu
[...]

ok, so it's detected as coming from non-free which makes sense now that I
know what's in debian/control of that package..


> $ find /etc/apt/sources.list* -type f |xargs cat
[...]

thanks, there's no non-free in it, so it's coming from the installed
package... (see the first question of this mail above :)

So, I don't think this should be fixed in vrms: the fonts-ubuntu package
on Ubuntu ships meta data which specifies the package is non-free and
vrms merely displays this information. So even on the Ubuntu side I think
this should be fixed in src:fonts-ubuntu and non in src:vrms.

Unless some convincing argument shows up I will close this bug soon.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁       holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

There are no jobs on a dead planet.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033332

On 2020-11-18 23:45, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> I think the explanation can be found in d/control of fonts-ubuntu:
>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/control-0.83-4
>> It says "Section: non-free/fonts" also in the Ubuntu archive.
> 
> frankly I don't understand why you don't fix this on the Ubuntu side? :)

Well, I now realize that it could probably be fixed in the fonts-ubuntu 
package. (But even then I think it would be preferable to do it in 
Debian to not stop the possibility for Ubuntu to sync the source.)

>> And that's probably the reason why the adjustment I propose in the
>> merge request makes a difference.
> 
> actually I dont see a merge request anywhere(???)

https://salsa.debian.org/debian/vrms/-/merge_requests/1

>> https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/f/fonts-ubuntu/copyright-0.83-4
> 
> ah, thanks.
> 
> That file refers to #603157 which is a rather old and which states that
> a.) the Ubuntu Fonts License 1.0 is an interim solution and b.) that
> everybody would like to fix the build system, so that ubuntu-fonts could
> probably also go into main in Debian. Do you know of any progress on
> these issues?

Can't tell if anything has happened there. My attention to the issue was 
called the other day via the Ask Ubuntu questions I mentioned in the 
beginning of this bug report.

>> fonts-ubuntu                        sans-serif font set from Ubuntu
>> [...]
> 
> ok, so it's detected as coming from non-free which makes sense now that I
> know what's in debian/control of that package..
> 
> So, I don't think this should be fixed in vrms: the fonts-ubuntu package
> on Ubuntu ships meta data which specifies the package is non-free and
> vrms merely displays this information. So even on the Ubuntu side I think
> this should be fixed in src:fonts-ubuntu and non in src:vrms. >
> Unless some convincing argument shows up I will close this bug soon.

What you say makes sense. The reason I submitted this bug was that it's 
the existence of vrms which makes it an issue. Anyway, I'll see if it 
can be handled in src:fonts-ubuntu instead.

Thanks!

-- 
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1033322

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

hi again,

I'd appreciate if you could paste the output from running vrms to this
bug as well as the output of 

$ find /etc/apt/sources.list* -type f |xargs cat


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁       holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

If secure encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have it.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web