|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > March 2004 > Second list of suggestions for Debian 3.0r3
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Second list of suggestions for Debian 3.0r3
|
|
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-29, 11:35 am |
| Hi Joey,
thanks for commenting on my first list of suggestions for Debian 3.0r3.
Below are some additional suggestions (this time only removal
suggestions):
Must be removed
---------------
- freeamp #152857
trademark problems
- scsh #240162
licence is non-free
Completely useless since 3.0r0
------------------------------
- kernel-patch-2.4.0-reiserfs #159092
ReiserFS was included in 2.4.1
Other candidates for removal
----------------------------
- gkrellm-newsticker
was removed from unstable with the comment
RoQA; two unfixed security holes; orphaned
should be removed or the security team should check whether a DSA is
appropriate
- xfree86v3
possibly unfixed security problems
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Bastian Blank 2004-03-29, 11:35 am |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:51:01PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Must be removed
> ---------------
> - scsh #240162
> licence is non-free
The maintainer asked for rebuilds for moving it into non-free.
Bastian
--
I'm a soldier, not a diplomat. I can only tell the truth.
-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3198.9
| |
| Martin Michlmayr 2004-03-29, 11:35 am |
| * Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> [2004-03-29 17:51]:
> Below are some additional suggestions (this time only removal
> suggestions):
>
> Must be removed
> ---------------
>
> - freeamp #152857
> trademark problems
Did you see Joey's comments (or the message he forwarded from -legal)
in that bug report?
--
Martin Michlmayr
tbm@cyrius.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Martin Schulze 2004-03-29, 11:36 am |
| Adrian Bunk wrote:
> thanks for commenting on my first list of suggestions for Debian 3.0r3.
>
> Below are some additional suggestions (this time only removal
> suggestions):
>
>
> Must be removed
> ---------------
>
> - freeamp #152857
> trademark problems
We disagree. A "discussion" has been started on debian-legal because
of this.
> - scsh #240162
> licence is non-free
Should be moved to non-free, but requires help of developers who
support non-free to rebuild the new package on non-ia32 architectures.
I'm in touch with Lionel, but we need support from others. The
good thing is that the new version will be free again. So this
is not an evil non-free package, but a package which unintentionally
contained non-free parts, that were removed in a later release
after intervention of the Debian maintainer. Hence, we should rather
move it to non-free for stable than remove it. I'd argue differently
if this package would still be non-free in its most recent version.
Lionel sent a mail to debian-ports today.
> Completely useless since 3.0r0
> ------------------------------
>
> - kernel-patch-2.4.0-reiserfs #159092
> ReiserFS was included in 2.4.1
Oh, this I overlooked. Ack.
> Other candidates for removal
> ----------------------------
>
> - gkrellm-newsticker
> was removed from unstable with the comment
> RoQA; two unfixed security holes; orphaned
> should be removed or the security team should check whether a DSA is
> appropriate
The security team needs to decide.
> - xfree86v3
> possibly unfixed security problems
The security team is fixing stuff with help of Branden. Hence,
this should be discussed with the security team as well.
Also, removing security-buggy packages would not help our users.
It's even the contrary, since the users would still use the buggy
version, without an upgrade path unless they upgrade their distribution.
Hence, removing due to security problems is not a preferred method
to deal with security issues.
Regards,
Joey
--
Never trust an operating system you don't have source for!
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-29, 12:36 pm |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:56:30PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de> [2004-03-29 17:51]:
>
> Did you see Joey's comments (or the message he forwarded from -legal)
> in that bug report?
Are you talking about the message that contains:
<-- snip -->
Has PlayMedia Systems (PMS) sent us a cease and desist?
If not, I suggest that we ignore it until that happens. [However, if
it does, we will have to move quickly to remove|rename it.]
<-- snip -->
This is IMHO very weak.
I don't know about the situation in other countries, but at least with
the German equivalent of a "cease and desist" (Abmahnung), a company
owning a trademark would be allowed without any warning before to
instruct a lawyer to send "cease and desist" letters to every single
mirror and perhaps CD distributor in Germany. If you sign to desist you
have to pay the costs of the lawyer which is usually in the range of at
about 1000 Euro per letter.
> Martin Michlmayr
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-29, 1:37 pm |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 06:10:14PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> We disagree. A "discussion" has been started on debian-legal because
> of this.
I've sent my opinion in the answer to tbm's mail.
But you are the SRM, it's your decision.
>...
>
> The security team needs to decide.
>
>
> The security team is fixing stuff with help of Branden. Hence,
> this should be discussed with the security team as well.
>
> Also, removing security-buggy packages would not help our users.
> It's even the contrary, since the users would still use the buggy
> version, without an upgrade path unless they upgrade their distribution.
> Hence, removing due to security problems is not a preferred method
> to deal with security issues.
Agreed.
But somthing similar might need to be implemented between stable
releases - the same problem you want to avoid will occur when upgrading
to Debian 3.1.
And in potato smail was the only important package with possible
security problems that was removed and it was explicitely described in
the release notes. Today with the removal of packages from testing every
few days I expect that there will be many security-buggy packages
present in Debian 3.0 that will not be in Debian 3.1.
> Regards,
>
> Joey
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Don Armstrong 2004-03-29, 3:35 pm |
| On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I don't know about the situation in other countries, but at least
> with the German equivalent of a "cease and desist" (Abmahnung), a
> company owning a trademark would be allowed without any warning
> before to instruct a lawyer to send "cease and desist" letters to
> every single mirror and perhaps CD distributor in Germany. If you
> sign to desist you have to pay the costs of the lawyer which is
> usually in the range of at about 1000 Euro per letter.
This is a wierd tenent of German law and its private cease and desist
letters. I don't know of any other country that does this (and
frankly, the abuses of it in Germany lead me to hope that no one else
does this either.)[1]
Regardless, it doesn't work that way in the US, and I hope most other
countries are similarly sane.
Furthermore, it's interesting to note that Playmedia Systems doesn't
even hold a trademark on winamp (as of 2/3/2004, that was owned by
AOL). They only own ADNECTO, 4PLAY, BOP, QPQ, INTERDICT, PCAMP, PDAMP,
AMPHIBIAN, INTERDICT, MPFREE, and PLAYMEDIA.[2]
Don Armstrong
1: More importantly, I looked and was unable to find a german mark
owned by PlayMedia Systems... so I'm not sure that we need to worry
about this plane of attack.
2: According to the US Trademark database at http://www.uspto.gov/
--
This can't be happening to me. I've got tenure.
-- James Hynes _Publish and Perish_
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Thiemo Seufer 2004-03-29, 4:35 pm |
| Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> This is a wierd tenent of German law and its private cease and desist
> letters. I don't know of any other country that does this (and
> frankly, the abuses of it in Germany lead me to hope that no one else
> does this either.)[1]
It has also some good aspects, as the SCO case shows.
> Regardless, it doesn't work that way in the US, and I hope most other
> countries are similarly sane.
>
> Furthermore, it's interesting to note that Playmedia Systems doesn't
> even hold a trademark on winamp (as of 2/3/2004, that was owned by
> AOL). They only own ADNECTO, 4PLAY, BOP, QPQ, INTERDICT, PCAMP, PDAMP,
> AMPHIBIAN, INTERDICT, MPFREE, and PLAYMEDIA.[2]
>
> Don Armstrong
>
> 1: More importantly, I looked and was unable to find a german mark
> owned by PlayMedia Systems... so I'm not sure that we need to worry
> about this plane of attack.
> 2: According to the US Trademark database at http://www.uspto.gov/
According to german law, trademarks come into existence either by
registration or by use (registration without use in the next IIRC
5 years renders the registration invalid). Worse, the trademark
owner is _required_ to defend his trademark against illegitimate
use, otherwise he'll lose it.
So you can expect there are not many trademarks which aren't
actually used, and you can expect those in use will be defended.
I don't know if Playmedia Systems actually uses "winamp" as a
trademark in Germany (of that, they would have to distribute some
product under this name).
IANAL,
Thiemo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Branden Robinson 2004-03-30, 2:34 am |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:51:01PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Hi Joey,
>
> thanks for commenting on my first list of suggestions for Debian 3.0r3.
>
> Below are some additional suggestions (this time only removal
> suggestions):
[...]
> Other candidates for removal
> ----------------------------
[...]
> - xfree86v3
> possibly unfixed security problems
I concur.
--
G. Branden Robinson | Measure with micrometer,
Debian GNU/Linux | mark with chalk,
branden@debian.org | cut with axe,
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | hope like hell.
| |
| Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña 2004-03-30, 8:35 am |
| On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:51:01PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Please add to the list:
>
> Must be removed
> ---------------
spellcast
spellcast-doc.
Since both are non-free. If moving them to
non-free from main is an option please say so and I will upload new
packages there.
The change has been done in sid, it has not propagated to testing since
porters will not build non-free stuff. As per #241002.
Sorry for missing this.
Javier
| |
| Martin Schulze 2004-03-30, 9:41 am |
| Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 05:51:01PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
> Please add to the list:
>
>
> spellcast
> spellcast-doc.
>
> Since both are non-free. If moving them to
> non-free from main is an option please say so and I will upload new
> packages there.
It is an option. Please take care about non-native architectures. You should
have an account on most architectures through porting hosts.
> The change has been done in sid, it has not propagated to testing since
> porters will not build non-free stuff. As per #241002.
Which change? Is the package becoming really free?
Regards,
Joey
--
Whenever you meet yourself you're in a time loop or in front of a mirror.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Adrian Bunk 2004-03-30, 5:34 pm |
| On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 03:12:38PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
>
> It is an option. Please take care about non-native architectures. You should
> have an account on most architectures through porting hosts.
>
>
> Which change? Is the package becoming really free?
The other way round:
It is non-free and the package in unstable is in non-free, but woody and
sarge still ship it in main.
> Regards,
>
> Joey
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|