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

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

On Fri, October 14, 2005 10:46 am, Peter Samuelson said:
> [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

my plan is "iasl" for the binary. I prefer to stay with the acpica-unix
(as named upstream) for the source package instead.

>> 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.

and just after saying "Some or all of this work - Copyright ..."

> 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?)

as said on d-legal I also asked on acpi-devel come clarifications, here's
the answer:

This actually makes me a little more comfortable with packaging this stuff
in main but I'm still open for a d-legal input.


Reply to: