pkg-non-free

Differences between revisions 1 and 28 (spanning 27 versions)
Revision 1 as of 2007-07-15 09:42:32
Size: 1541
Editor: 213-140-17-98
Comment:
Revision 28 as of 2007-10-28 10:57:07
Size: 2853
Editor: kgr
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 4: Line 4:
The table is compused in the following mode:
|| '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
'''''Please, put the software in alphabetics order.'''''
Note that there is no need to mention software here that is not in the `main` component of Ubuntu, as Gobuntu will not ship anything outside that component. Non-free software in `main` should be moved to `restricted`.

Additionally, all software in `universe` component should be free software, and if not, should be moved to `multiverse`.

At the current point of time, Gobuntu's definition of free software has not been entirely clarified (see note about software patents in the bottom part of the page). Compare the idea of restricted usage because of software patent laws in specific countries, but otherwise completely Free code, vs. simpler non-free because the code does not fill the freedom definitions from FSF, OSI or DFSG.

The table is composed as follows:
||<rowbgcolor="#d9bb7a"> '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
'''''Please, put the software in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#The_English_alphabet alphabetical] order.'''''
Line 9: Line 15:
|| '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| bcm43xx-fwcutter |||| F4l3 |||| Firmware Closed ||
|| Gstreamer |||| F4l3 |||| patents ||
|| Samba |||| F4l3 |||| patents, reverse enginering ||
|| Vlc |||| F4l3 |||| patents ||
||<rowbgcolor="#d9bb7a"> '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| Mono |||| anonymous |||| patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft ||
|| Mono dependants (ex. Beagle) |||| anonymous (clarified by Gegio0) |||| unmet dependencies ||
Line 16: Line 20:
|| '''Name of old Software''' |||| '''Name of new Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| Firefox |||| Iceweasel |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Draconian trademark restrictions ||
|| Thunderbird |||| Icedove |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Draconian trademark restrictions ||
||<rowbgcolor="#d9bb7a"> '''Name of old Software''' |||| '''Name of new Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| Firefox |||| Iceweasel |||| anonymous |||| Draconian trademark restrictions ||
|| Thunderbird |||| Icedove |||| anonymous |||| Draconian trademark restrictions ||
Line 21: Line 25:
|| '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| Mono |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft ||
|| Mono dependants (ex. Beagle) |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Audit requiredt ||
||<rowbgcolor="#d9bb7a"> '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
Line 25: Line 27:
=== Mono ===
I move Mono from remove to check beacuse, I think, mono is based on the iso standard and, than Microsoft can't ask royalties. F4l3
=== Packages with possible patent problems ===
Line 28: Line 29:
=== Mono dependants ===
If there is mono, the mono dependants can stay ;) F4l3
Software patents are a threat, but they don't make a software non-free as such. Software patents are legal only in some countries, and it can be argued that the software patent system is so flawed that it impossible to create any software without possibly violating some patent. The following packages are examples of packages which have been reported because of potential patent-related problems:

||<rowbgcolor="#d9bb7a"> '''Name of Software''' |||| '''Submitter''' |||| '''Cause of Submit''' ||
|| Gnash |||| RyanP |||| patents ||
|| Samba |||| F4l3 |||| patents ||

In Samba and Gnash, also "reverse engineering" was mentioned by the original submitter as the cause, but reverse engineering is a completely legal way and when done without violating anything, produces entirely free software, too. Like eg. with Gnash.

Package non-free

This page include a list of the software that isn't free software. We thank you, if you collaborate, but we thank more if you collaborate in the respect of the table. Note that there is no need to mention software here that is not in the main component of Ubuntu, as Gobuntu will not ship anything outside that component. Non-free software in main should be moved to restricted.

Additionally, all software in universe component should be free software, and if not, should be moved to multiverse.

At the current point of time, Gobuntu's definition of free software has not been entirely clarified (see note about software patents in the bottom part of the page). Compare the idea of restricted usage because of software patent laws in specific countries, but otherwise completely Free code, vs. simpler non-free because the code does not fill the freedom definitions from FSF, OSI or DFSG.

The table is composed as follows:

Name of Software

Submitter

Cause of Submit

Please, put the software in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#The_English_alphabet alphabetical] order.

Package to remove

Name of Software

Submitter

Cause of Submit

Mono

anonymous

patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft

Mono dependants (ex. Beagle)

anonymous (clarified by Gegio0)

unmet dependencies

Package to replace

Name of old Software

Name of new Software

Submitter

Cause of Submit

Firefox

Iceweasel

anonymous

Draconian trademark restrictions

Thunderbird

Icedove

anonymous

Draconian trademark restrictions

Package to check

Name of Software

Submitter

Cause of Submit

Packages with possible patent problems

Software patents are a threat, but they don't make a software non-free as such. Software patents are legal only in some countries, and it can be argued that the software patent system is so flawed that it impossible to create any software without possibly violating some patent. The following packages are examples of packages which have been reported because of potential patent-related problems:

Name of Software

Submitter

Cause of Submit

Gnash

RyanP

patents

Samba

F4l3

patents

In Samba and Gnash, also "reverse engineering" was mentioned by the original submitter as the cause, but reverse engineering is a completely legal way and when done without violating anything, produces entirely free software, too. Like eg. with Gnash.

Gobuntu/pkg-non-free (last edited 2008-09-28 06:01:37 by cpe-72-179-186-9)