License issue? (Re: Including partman-hfs to the team's git project)
Hi,
John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote (Tue, 3 May 2022 10:22:35 +0200):
> Hello Holger!
>
> On 5/2/22 16:10, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > Apparently I did not got the point regarding non-free here, when reading
> > this mail that day.
> >
> > Now I see that partman-hfs is in contrib, and that opened my eyes.
> > I wonder if it's ok from the license point-of-view, to have a installer
> > module from contrib in the installer?
> > Doesn't this turn the whole installer into a no-longer DFSG-free piece of
> > software?
>
> Only if you build CD images with the packages included which is not happening by
> default. I would argue it's similar to non-free images that are being built
> with firmware included.
>
> > Or in other words: can we call such installer the "official Debian-Installer"?
> >
> > (There is another issue about non-free firmware to be included in the
> > installer, and unofficial installer images were introduced for this; maybe
> > this is a similar thing?)
>
> Yes.
>
> > Ahhh, another thought comes to mind:
> > maybe this partman-hfs is for ports releases anyway, and not to be used in
> > official release archs?
>
> It's part of unstable, so in principal, it can be used to build non-free installer
> images.
For which archs is this used?
> Unfortunately, debian-cd currently seems unable to include udebs from contrib
> and non-free which is why this has to be enabled in the codebase first anyway.
>
> However, I would appreciate it if you could add partman-hfs to the translation
> project so it gets translated as all the other d-i packages. You are also very
> welcome to perform uploads of the partman-hfs package yourself.
>
> As for the license issue: The hfsprogs package has been in main for a long time
> but then someone raised the severity of this license bug to serious and the
> package had to be moved to non-free [1].
>
> I would still argue that Apple's APSL should not be considered non-free, especially
> since Fedora ships the hfsplus-tools package with their normal distribution [2] and
> Fedora is known to be very strict when it comes to license questions.
So even if partman-hfs is not used by default currently, the translations are
currently used (translators work on it, if we add partman-hfs to the
l10n machinery), so I wonder if this introduces a license issue for the
translation files?
(The po files contain the hint:
"This file is distributed under the same license as debian-installer.")
Holger
--
Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Reply to: