Re: A Round of Removals
Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:
> Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Both acroread and netscape have security bugs that we CANNOT reasonably fix
> > due to their non-freeness. These are probably two of the most justified
> > removals. It is possible that newer versions of Netscape Navigator (at
> > least 4.79 seems to exist) may fix this bug, but I cannot say for sure.
> > Newer versions of Acrobat Reader are not redistributable (see the BTS), so
> > this needs to go anyway.
>
> Yes and what think about create an acroread-installer package?
Not allowed. Yes, acroread is THAT non-free. Really.
Section 2.5 of http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/acrreula.html
says in part:
No Modification. You may customize or extend the functionality of
the installer for the Software as specifically allowed by
instructions found at www.adobe.com or http://partners.adobe.com
(e.g., installation of additional plug-in and help files). You may
not otherwise alter or modify the Software or create a new
installer for the Software.
IIRC, Adobe has explicitly said that they mean this in the most
pessimistic sense - that is, no acroread-installer package.
And I even think that this excludes something like an
"acrobat-install-fixer" package that could be run after Adobe's
installer to clean up and put things in their proper location;
however, for that you'd have to consult Adobe and possibly a lawyer.
(judges tend to take a dim view towards creative interpretation of
license agreements, especially when the result is that the combined
work (Debian) benefits by its association with the work whose license
is being creatively interpreted (acroread))
I think our best bet is to publicize far and wide what Adobe is really
saying with its Acrobat license, and that this is /not/ Debian being
license-paranoid - Adobe really does not want a .deb acroread
installer.
Reply to: