Bug#451502: hplip is NON-FREE as of 2.7.10
On Sat November 17 2007 12:30:16 pm Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I'd just remove the auto-download functionality, and *package* the
> plugins in non-free. One can make hplip suggest (but not recommend
> or depend) on the plugin package, even if it is in non-free, AFAIK..
> The plugin package can depend on hplip.
That would violate clauses 1. and 3. of the plugins license:
1. License Grant. HP grants you a license to Use one copy of the Software
with HP printing products only. "Use" includes using, storing, loading,
installing, executing, and displaying the Software. You may not modify the
Software or disable any licensing or control features of the Software.
3. Copies and Adaptations. You may only make copies or adaptations of the
Software for archival purposes or when copying or adaptation is an essential
step in the authorized Use of the Software. You must reproduce all copyright
notices in the original Software on all copies or adaptations. You may not
copy the Software onto any public network.
1. is violated because the plugins are being used for something other
than "with HP printing products only", and having them on the mirrors
requires that Debian make use of more than one copy.
3. is violated because we are not allowed to "copy the Software onto
any public network."
We may be able to get permission to make publically available copies of
HP's software by claiming it is "an essential step in the authorized
Use of the Software", but that is a bit of a stretch because it is
really only essential for Debian to be able to provide access to the
software via Debian's package distribution mechanisms.
The way I see it:
- if all HP printers required non-free software which a user was
required to download then HPLIP would already be in contrib because
it would be useless without additional proprietary software
- if all HP printers shipped with all drivers and firmware they
require then HPLIP would be in main because no other software would be
necessary for HPLIP to be fully functional, regardless of whether the
drivers and firmware were proprietary or not
- if HP shipped Linux drivers and firmare with the printers they would
still need to provide an update mechanism and Debian would be pressured
to package it
So, for me, the question is:
Is this a `thin edge of the wedge' situation which Debian should reject
because it potentially opens the door to letting installers of non-free
software into main via `if it is OK to put drivers and firmware into a
blob then why not whatever functionality we want';
or is it a convenience function which makes life easier for everyone
(users have the nicest possible experience, no extra work or packages
for Debian, HP gets the control they want), and ripping it out could
be construed as unnecessarily hampering a users right to use whatever
software the want regardless of its freeness (which would violate the
Social Contract)?
If it is a thin-edge then we may as well just put HPLIP into contrib
and save ourselves a bunch of work in the long run.
If the convenience of having an update mechanism included in software
providing more functionality is great enough then Debian should do the
short term work and come up with some guidelines with respect to: how
much functionality is needed for the software to be considered more
than just an installer, and what kind of functionality the non-free
blob being managed is allowed to contain.
If it is deemed desirable to have HPLIP in main but undesirable for it
to manage non-free blobs of any description the offending code should
be ripped out of HPLIP and packaged for inclusion in non-free. However,
I think this route pretty much guarantees the maximum amount of work in
both the short term and long run because we would need to create and
maintain a fork of HPLIP.
- Bruce
Reply to: