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

Re: [upx-nrv] Non-free package licenses and replacements

On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:29:39AM +0200, Niklas Vainio wrote:
> I've put up a web page listing possible replacements for packages currently in
> non-free. There are still lot of blanks - please give suggestions. Perhaps this
> page can help in the discussion about removing non-free.
> Also included is explanation why the package is in non-free. This is based
> on the summary Craig Sanders posted in debian-vote some time ago. I have
> added comments from mailing lists and some of my own. In the discussion it
> was noted that status of some packages is unclear and we might not have
> permission to distribute them at all.
> Now I'm asking for suggestions for replacements and comments on whether some
> packages should be either moved to main or removed completely because of the
> license or what kind of changes to the license we could suggest to upstream.

Notes on the upx-nrv package:

As far as I know, this is the free sources also used in upx-ucl,
but linked against an additional, non-free compression library.

The benefits of compressing with upx-nrv rather than the free
upx-ucl is supposedly a slightly better compression ratio.
However it is unclear if the free version can always decompress
files compressed by the non-free version.  If it can then there
should be no problem, but if it cannot, then the ability to
decompress the non-free format is important for things like
virus checking of e-mails (a large percentage of all e-mail
viruses are upx packed, and I don't think the virus-writers care
too much about licenses...).

So depending on this compatibility issue, this may be very easy
or very hard to drop!

Keep up the good work


This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.

Reply to: