pkg-non-free
1723
Comment: remove bcm43xx-fwcutter as it isn't in main anyway!
|
3529
as said, Mono's problem is patents, so I moved it to "patent problems"
|
Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
Line 4: | Line 4: |
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. | 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. |
Line 7: | Line 12: |
'''''Please, put the software in alphabetical order.''''' | '''''Please, put the software in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_alphabet#The_English_alphabet alphabetical] order.''''' '''''Please, cite a reference for the "Cause of Submit".''''' |
Line 11: | Line 18: |
|| Gstreamer |||| F4l3 |||| patents || || Samba |||| F4l3 |||| patents, reverse engineering || || Vlc |||| F4l3 |||| patents || |
|
Line 17: | Line 22: |
|| Firefox |||| Iceweasel |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Draconian trademark restrictions || || Thunderbird |||| Icedove |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Draconian trademark restrictions || |
|| Firefox |||| Iceweasel/Epiphany |||| anonymous |||| Draconian trademark restrictions || || Thunderbird |||| Icedove |||| anonymous |||| Draconian trademark restrictions || |
Line 22: | Line 27: |
|| Mono |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft || || Mono dependants (ex. Beagle) |||| Keith G. Robertson-Turner |||| Audit requiredt || |
|
Line 25: | Line 28: |
=== 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 30: |
=== 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 || || Mono |||| anonymous |||| patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft || || Mono dependants (ex. Beagle) |||| anonymous (clarified by Gegio0) |||| unmet dependencies || 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. tenshu: please consider that software patent does not exists in many countries. ["LunaTick"]: From ["https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Gobuntu/Policies"]: "Gobuntu does not have or need a separate attitude to software patents to that of the Ubuntu project. In the current software world it is common to see accusations of patent violation which do not specify what patents are affected or how the software violates them. While Ubuntu is prepared to take evidenced and specified allegations of patent infringement seriously, without proof of the patent infringement such accusations are worthless." |
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.
Please, cite a reference for the "Cause of Submit".
Package to remove
Name of Software |
Submitter |
Cause of Submit |
Package to replace
Name of old Software |
Name of new Software |
Submitter |
Cause of Submit |
|||
Firefox |
Iceweasel/Epiphany |
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 |
||
Mono |
anonymous |
patent encumbered with untrustworthy RAND clause from Microsoft |
||
Mono dependants (ex. Beagle) |
anonymous (clarified by Gegio0) |
unmet dependencies |
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.
tenshu: please consider that software patent does not exists in many countries.
["LunaTick"]: From ["https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Gobuntu/Policies"]:
"Gobuntu does not have or need a separate attitude to software patents to that of the Ubuntu project.
In the current software world it is common to see accusations of patent violation which do not specify what patents are affected or how the software violates them. While Ubuntu is prepared to take evidenced and specified allegations of patent infringement seriously, without proof of the patent infringement such accusations are worthless."
Gobuntu/pkg-non-free (last edited 2008-09-28 06:01:37 by cpe-72-179-186-9)