[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#333603: ITP: acpica-unix -- an ASL compiler/decompiler

[Mattia Dongili]
> * Package name    : acpica-unix
> iasl compiles ASL (ACPI Source Language) into AML (ACPI Machine
> Language). This AML is suitable for inclusion as a DSDT in system
> firmware. It also can disassemble AML, for debugging purposes.

The name is a bit silly, IMO.  It's not as though Debian is likely to
get a acpica-win32 package in the near future.

The binary package should probably be named either 'acpica' or 'iasl'.
The source package could, I suppose, be either 'acpica' or
'acpica-unix'.  The source package name matters less because users
won't see it directly in most cases.

> I'm not very comfortable with the licence language and I'd like somebody
> to proof-read it before uploading this stuff.
> I'd say this licence grants enough rights, but there are also a lot of
> "must".

I'll leave debian-legal to dissect this one in detail - but some bits
of the license are sloppy.  For example, requiring approval from the US
Dept. of Commerce before exporting the software - from *any* country -
is probably not the intent; they just forgot to stipulate that they
meant exporting it "from the United States".  Forcing all licensees,
regardless of location, to agree to comply with the U.S. Export
Administration Regulations is silly, and probably unenforceable.  The
copyright notice says "all rights reserved" right before the rest of
the license spells out several rights which are, in fact, not reserved.
The license also tells us we *must* read it before *using* the
software, as though it were some sort of click-wrap - this too is
probably unenforceable, but if enforceable, is non-free.  (How is
Debian supposed to ensure that users read the license before using the
software?  What if all packages said that?)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: