Maneage - Tasks: task #15752, Can we allow non-free software in...
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
task #15752: Can we allow non-free software in maneage? if yes, then how?
Submitter: | Boud Roukema <boud> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 17 Aug 2020 07:55:29 AM UTC | ||
Should Start On: | Mon 17 Aug 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC | Should be Finished on: | Mon 17 Aug 2020 12:00:00 AM UTC |
Category: | None | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Status: | None | Privacy: | Public |
Percent Complete: | 0% | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open | Effort: | 0.00 |
Jump to the original submission
Sat 22 Aug 2020 06:45:59 PM UTC, comment #6: |
Boud Roukema <boud>![]() |
Sat 22 Aug 2020 06:39:58 PM UTC, comment #5: Thanks Boud, can you please elaborate a little more on not seeing any reason to use LGPL?
|
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi>![]() |
Sat 22 Aug 2020 06:19:57 PM UTC, comment #4:
|
Boud Roukema <boud>![]() |
Wed 19 Aug 2020 05:10:02 AM UTC, comment #3: Hi Boud and Mohammad!
|
Mohammadreza Khellat <mkhellat>![]() |
Mon 17 Aug 2020 12:02:56 PM UTC, comment #2: On the technical aspect of what components need to be modified to allow it, one fast solution that comes to my mind is this: we can include the build instructions of non-free software in 'reproduce/software/make/not-free.mk' and add a special variable in 'TARGETS.conf' for people to be able to select such tools if they want, and ofcourse automatically cite them if they have a paper (like any other software). |
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi>![]() |
Mon 17 Aug 2020 11:57:22 AM UTC, comment #1: One fast licensing solution that I have been considering for some time, is to convert the license of Maneage to LGPL. Because I also know that in some science fields (and certainly in some industries), they (unfortunately!) rely heavily on proprietary software and data formats.
|
Mohammad Akhlaghi <makhlaghi>![]() |
Mon 17 Aug 2020 07:55:29 AM UTC, original submission:
While non-free software is incompatible with Maneage in terms of licensing elements of "the package itself", downloading, compiling and installing non-free software is allowed, it seems to me (though I'm not a lawyer). There are going to be some people who, although they understand the political reasons for using free software (euphemistically called "philosophical" reasons by the FSF), will choose to install some non-free software as part of the Maneage configure pipeline.
|
Boud Roukema <boud>![]() |
No files currently attached
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 2 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2020-08-22 | boud | Summary | Licensing Maneage as LGPL and including non-free software | ![]() |
Can we allow non-free software in maneage? if yes, then how? |
2020-08-17 | makhlaghi | Summary | Non-free software configured by Maneage? | ![]() |
Licensing Maneage as LGPL and including non-free software |
hi Mohammedreza, I'm answering this separately for clarity :).
comment #3:
I think so too - many of the packages that we download/compile/install are free software but not GPL, and some are probably free software but GPL-incompatible.
The GNU.org guidelines (as you link to below) insist that the result of running a program is not covered by copyright. The result of reading a book is not a copyright issue. So I would say "No".
Just two corrections there: a script is not necessarily either open-source-definition licensed, nor free-software licensed. Secondly, 'grep' in Maneage is a binary, not a script. :)
There's plenty of non-free software which is not fully proprietary (GNU/FSF probably disagrees, but I think most people would agree that there's a spectrum). But if someone wanted to download/compile/install or download/install a non-free, even fully proprietary program, that would be up to him/her to decide if that's consistent with the non-free conditions in the licence. In fact, in principle a web server may require a login or an online signing of a terms-of-agreement statement. That's up to the people developing that to work out how to handle - and for them to contact legal people if they're worried.
I agree - someone doing that would have to be careful not to risk the overall default GPL and other free-licensed aspects of Maneage.
I think the links you gave are very useful, and a key part is:
So I think that making any non-free (better non-free than not-free, for consistency with wider usage) components well separated, at arm's length, is what we would need.
For example, in parallel to high-level.mk, we would have non-free.mk . We would probably also have to modify project , maybe to have both ./project make and ./project make non-free_, , for example. I think that Debian would be a good example to follow.