* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-07 4:17 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2019-03-07 23:02 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-08 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-08 10:08 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-15 23:55 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2019-03-07 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 34717
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1590 bytes --]
On 2019-03-06, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2019-03-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>> The u-boot package definition includes openssl amoung it's inputs, but
>>> is also a GPL2+ software project... but the GPL and OpenSSL licenses are
>>> incompatible:
>>>
>>> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpenSSL
...
>>> In the Debian u-boot packaging, some of the features using openssl are
>>> disabled, and some of the u-boot targets that require openssl are not
>>> part of the packages. I'd be happy to help with making such adjustments
>>> if this is deemed the better approach for u-boot specifically.
>>
>> That’d be great. We could definitely remove the OpenSSL dependency when
>> it’s not needed.
>
> For what it's worth, I did do local builds of all the current u-boot-*
> targets in guix with openssl removed from inputs, and the only one that
> failed to build without openssl was u-boot-tools.
I've tested that the attached patch builds all u-boot-* targets on
x86_64 (cross-building most of them), with openssl removed from
native-inputs.
Unfortunately, u-boot-tools fails it's tests on aarch64 and armhf, but
that appears to be the case with or without this patch, so it's no worse
off than it was...
I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
just go ahead and re-add the openssl input...
live well,
vagrant
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1.2: 0001-gnu-u-boot-Remove-openssl-input.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 2008 bytes --]
From ee613387c49ca60905e0a40af8af017828c8aec8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:50:58 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] gnu: u-boot: Remove openssl input.
Fixes: https://bugs.gnu.org/34717
* gnu/packages/bootloaders (u-boot): Remove openssl from native-inputs.
(u-boot-tools): Disable FIT_SIGNATURES in tests.
---
gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm b/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
index b0617f452a..15953ab75e 100644
--- a/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
+++ b/gnu/packages/bootloaders.scm
@@ -391,7 +391,6 @@ tree binary files. These are board description files used by Linux and BSD.")
("dtc" ,dtc)
("flex" ,flex)
("lz4" ,lz4)
- ("openssl" ,openssl)
("python-2" ,python-2)
("python2-coverage" ,python2-coverage)
("python2-pytest" ,python2-pytest)
@@ -440,9 +439,14 @@ also initializes the boards (RAM etc).")
(("def test_ctrl_c")
"@pytest.mark.skip(reason='Guix has problems with SIGINT')
def test_ctrl_c"))
- ;; This test requires a sound system, which is un-used in u-boot-tools.
(for-each (lambda (file)
(substitute* file
+ ;; Disable signatures, due to GPL/Openssl
+ ;; license incompatibilities. See
+ ;; https://bugs.gnu.org/34717 for details.
+ (("CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE=y") "CONFIG_FIT_SIGNATURE=n")
+ ;; This test requires a sound system, which is un-used
+ ;; in u-boot-tools.
(("CONFIG_SOUND=y") "CONFIG_SOUND=n")))
(find-files "configs" "sandbox_.*defconfig$"))
#t))
--
2.20.1
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-07 23:02 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2019-03-08 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-08 19:14 ` Vagrant Cascadian
[not found] ` <87y26loa74.fsf@yucca>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2019-03-08 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vagrant Cascadian; +Cc: 34717
Hi,
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
> I've tested that the attached patch builds all u-boot-* targets on
> x86_64 (cross-building most of them), with openssl removed from
> native-inputs.
>
> Unfortunately, u-boot-tools fails it's tests on aarch64 and armhf, but
> that appears to be the case with or without this patch, so it's no worse
> off than it was...
This can be fixed separately then.
> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
> just go ahead and re-add the openssl input...
There’s always a risk. I guess we’ll have to be careful when doing
reviews.
In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
> From ee613387c49ca60905e0a40af8af017828c8aec8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org>
> Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 21:50:58 +0000
> Subject: [PATCH] gnu: u-boot: Remove openssl input.
>
> Fixes: https://bugs.gnu.org/34717
>
> * gnu/packages/bootloaders (u-boot): Remove openssl from native-inputs.
> (u-boot-tools): Disable FIT_SIGNATURES in tests.
Applied, thanks!
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-08 10:23 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2019-03-08 19:14 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-09 21:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
[not found] ` <87y26loa74.fsf@yucca>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2019-03-08 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 34717
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 975 bytes --]
On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
>> just go ahead and re-add the openssl input...
>
> There’s always a risk. I guess we’ll have to be careful when doing
> reviews.
Sure. I was thinking maybe putting a comment in the native-inputs where
"openssl" was removed, but wasn't sure what the conventions might be.
> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level,
e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to
override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise,
it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't
appropriate.
live well,
vagrant
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-08 19:14 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2019-03-09 21:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-09 23:10 ` Vagrant Cascadian
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2019-03-09 21:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vagrant Cascadian; +Cc: 34717
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>> I'm not sure where it would be appropriate to add more comments
>>> regarding the GPL/Openssl incompatibilities; e.g. if someone were to
>>> propose adding one of the u-boot targets that requires it, they might
>>> just go ahead and re-add the openssl input...
>>
>> There’s always a risk. I guess we’ll have to be careful when doing
>> reviews.
>
> Sure. I was thinking maybe putting a comment in the native-inputs where
> "openssl" was removed, but wasn't sure what the conventions might be.
Yeah that would have worked I guess.
>> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
>
> Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level,
> e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to
> override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise,
> it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't
> appropriate.
No it doesn’t have that notion of a confidence level.
The warning could be triggered only when a package is GPL’d and has a
direct dependency on OpenSSL (we’d forget about indirect dependencies in
this case.) The noise would be rather limited and justified in this
case, I think. WDYT?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-09 21:57 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2019-03-09 23:10 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-10 3:58 ` Jack Hill
2019-03-10 17:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Vagrant Cascadian @ 2019-03-09 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ludovic Courtès; +Cc: 34717
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1619 bytes --]
On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
>>
>> Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level,
>> e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to
>> override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise,
>> it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't
>> appropriate.
>
> No it doesn’t have that notion of a confidence level.
And I presume no overrides either, given no comment about that?
> The warning could be triggered only when a package is GPL’d and has a
> direct dependency on OpenSSL (we’d forget about indirect dependencies in
> this case.) The noise would be rather limited and justified in this
> case, I think. WDYT?
The openssl package currently ships the "openssl" binary, as well as the
libraries. I suspect there are at least three potential cases where a
package might depend on it:
* Calls the "openssl" binary as part of test suite or run-time. No
licensing compatibility issue, no worries!
* Using include files from the openssl headers; I guess you could search
for "include .* openssl/*.h" in the source code. Might get some false
positives. Can be run without actually even building it.
* Linking against the library which should actually be easy to detect
with ldd or other tools. Would need to build and then run the checks to
be sure.
live well,
vagrant
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-09 23:10 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2019-03-10 3:58 ` Jack Hill
2019-03-10 17:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Jack Hill @ 2019-03-10 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 34717
Hi,
Hopefully the OpenSSL re-licensing [0] will help with this problem in the
long-term. At least for code that can be distributed under GPLv3, which
may include u-boot [1].
Best,
Jack
[0] https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2018/03/01/last-license/
[1] https://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/Licensing
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-09 23:10 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-10 3:58 ` Jack Hill
@ 2019-03-10 17:12 ` Ludovic Courtès
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2019-03-10 17:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vagrant Cascadian; +Cc: 34717
Hi,
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
> On 2019-03-09, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>> On 2019-03-08, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>>>> Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
>>>> In addition, we can add a ‘lint’ checker for this case, WDYT?
>>>
>>> Does the lint checker have a way to identify a confidence level,
>>> e.g. *maybe* it has this issue vs. *certainly*? Is there a way to
>>> override the lint checker issues for known false positives? Otherwise,
>>> it might just be annoying noise for packagers where it isn't
>>> appropriate.
>>
>> No it doesn’t have that notion of a confidence level.
>
> And I presume no overrides either, given no comment about that?
We could arrange for this lint “checker” to honor some per-package
property that would silence it. We do that with the ‘cve’ checker and
the ‘lint-hidden-cve’ property.
>> The warning could be triggered only when a package is GPL’d and has a
>> direct dependency on OpenSSL (we’d forget about indirect dependencies in
>> this case.) The noise would be rather limited and justified in this
>> case, I think. WDYT?
>
> The openssl package currently ships the "openssl" binary, as well as the
> libraries. I suspect there are at least three potential cases where a
> package might depend on it:
>
> * Calls the "openssl" binary as part of test suite or run-time. No
> licensing compatibility issue, no worries!
>
> * Using include files from the openssl headers; I guess you could search
> for "include .* openssl/*.h" in the source code. Might get some false
> positives. Can be run without actually even building it.
>
> * Linking against the library which should actually be easy to detect
> with ldd or other tools. Would need to build and then run the checks to
> be sure.
So for the 1st case we’d definitely need that property to tell ‘lint’
that everything is known-good.
‘guix lint’ does very inexpensive tests, so unpacking the tarball and
grepping it would be beyond its scope. However, if we can provide the
warning and people have a way to silence it, I guess we’re fine?
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <87y26loa74.fsf@yucca>]
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-07 4:17 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-07 23:02 ` Vagrant Cascadian
@ 2019-03-08 10:08 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-08 10:16 ` Ludovic Courtès
2019-03-15 23:55 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2019-03-08 10:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vagrant Cascadian; +Cc: 34717
Hi
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> skribis:
> On 2019-03-06, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> openssl@1.0 has 7,029 dependent packages, so it may be hard to sort it
>> out. I wonder what would be the best way to approach it.
>
> How many of them are also license:gpl* though? That would hopefully
> reduce the scope somewhat, or maybe even significantly...
>
> If "guix package --search= ..." could be extended to to also search
> other fields, e.g. license: and dependencies: ... it might not be so
> difficult a search.
Here’s an estimate:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix package -s "" |recsel -e 'license ~ "GPL"' -e 'dependencies ~ "openssl"' |grep ^name| wc -l
265
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
You can view the list of packages like this:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
guix package -s "" |recsel -e 'license ~ "GPL"' -e 'dependencies ~ "openssl"' -p name,version
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>>> In the Debian u-boot packaging, some of the features using openssl are
>>> disabled, and some of the u-boot targets that require openssl are not
>>> part of the packages. I'd be happy to help with making such adjustments
>>> if this is deemed the better approach for u-boot specifically.
>>
>> That’d be great. We could definitely remove the OpenSSL dependency when
>> it’s not needed.
>
> For what it's worth, I did do local builds of all the current u-boot-*
> targets in guix with openssl removed from inputs, and the only one that
> failed to build without openssl was u-boot-tools.
Not that bad!
>> In cases where it is needed, it would be nice to see what it’s used
>> for. Many projects use OpenSSL just for its cryptographic hash
>> functions, for example, and there’s plenty of options to choose from if
>> that’s all that’s needed (Gcrypt, Nettle, etc.).
>
> I think it is using it for generating and verifying rsa signatures, and
> probably other similar basic things. So far I had only thought about
> gnutls, but if gcrypt or nettle are other options, then so much the
> better.
>
> I briefly looked at gnutls's openssl compatibility layers, but it didn't
> seem to implement sufficiently similar include files, which is largely
> all that it is doing.
Yeah, GnuTLS’ OpenSSL compat layer has been bitrotting since forever.
But really rather than GnuTLS they should target one of these crypto
libraries, which seem to be a better fit.
>> I guess this should be discussed with upstream.
>
> I did bring it upstream a little over a year ago, and the response was
> pretty much to rewrite it with gnutls, and I pointed out the most likely
> files that needed updating:
>
> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-November/312483.html
> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-December/313616.html
> https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2017-December/313742.html
>
> I suspect it's pretty much a "patches accepted" sort of scenario.
I guess “we” should consider doing it at some point. Changing the RSA
signature code to use another API can’t be that hard™. ;-)
I see from the message above that PEM encoding/decoding may also be
needed, which Gcrypt doesn’t provide.
Thanks,
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-08 10:08 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2019-03-08 10:16 ` Ludovic Courtès
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Ludovic Courtès @ 2019-03-08 10:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vagrant Cascadian; +Cc: 34717
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> skribis:
> Here’s an estimate:
Oops, I was doing an “or” instead of an “and”; here’s the fix:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix package -s "" |recsel -e 'license ~ "GPL" && dependencies ~ "openssl"' |grep ^name | wc -l
154
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
Still a lot, and that doesn’t take into account indirect GPL dependents.
Ludo’.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* bug#34717: GPL and Openssl incompatibilities in u-boot and possibly others
2019-03-07 4:17 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-07 23:02 ` Vagrant Cascadian
2019-03-08 10:08 ` Ludovic Courtès
@ 2019-03-15 23:55 ` Adonay Felipe Nogueira
2 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira @ 2019-03-15 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 34717
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4762 bytes --]
Hi there! :D
Em 07/03/2019 01:17, Vagrant Cascadian escreveu:
> How many of them are also license:gpl* though? That would hopefully
My Guix pull is from commit d22d246a256814784dfb03437949bdc2efd746a5.
I made a little recsel trick to get all packages licensed under [A]GPL
(any version) and which are dependent on any package licensed under
OpenSSL. However, this doesn't check if the [A]GPL'd packages use the
OpenSSL'd dependencies' library or the object code/executable. That
said, there might be plenty of false entries here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ guix package -s '' | recsel -CR "name,version" -e 'license ~
"([[:space:]]|^)[A]?GPL" && dependencies ~ "([[:space:]]|^)('$(guix
package -s '' | recsel -CR 'name,version' -e 'license ~ "OpenSSL"' | tr
'\n' '|' | sed 's/[[:space:]]/@/g; s/\(\.\)/\\\1/g;
s/|\($\)/\1/g')')([[:space:]]|$)"' | sed 's/ /@/g' | tr '\n' ' '
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This gives the following list:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
neon@0.30.2 fetchmail@6.3.26 git-crypt@0.5.0 socat@1.7.3.2 scribus@1.5.4
389-ds-base@1.4.0.13 bigloo@4.3e1 kdelibs4support@5.55.0 munge@0.5.13
gnunet@0.10.1 mupdf@1.14.0 slurm@17.11.3 sssd@1.16.2 wesnoth@1.14.6
yapet@1.1 keepalived@2.0.5 perl-net-ssleay@1.85 r-ggally@1.4.0
john-the-ripper-jumbo@1.8.0-1 psyclpc@20160821-2.61cf9aa hexchat@2.14.2
glusterfs@3.10.12 openvpn@2.4.7 libesmtp@1.0.6 httping@2.5
clamav@0.101.1 python2-mysqlclient@1.3.13 python-mysqlclient@1.3.13
openrct2@0.2.1 calibre@3.35.0 encfs@1.9.5 mosh@1.3.2 qbittorrent@4.1.5
mongodb@3.4.10 wimlib@1.13.0 libsignal-protocol-c@2.3.2 kicad@5.0.0
stunnel@5.48 ceph@13.2.2 looking-glass-client@a12-182c475
warzone2100@3.2.3 linuxdcpp@1.1.0 openvswitch@2.10.1 transmission@2.94
gvpe@3.1 ppp@2.4.7 libgit2@0.27.7 u-boot-novena@2019.01 uwsgi@2.0.18
icecast@2.4.4 rdesktop@1.8.4 gandi.cli@1.3 thc-ipv6@3.4-0.4bb7257
linux-libre-arm-omap2plus@4.20.13 linux-libre-arm-omap2plus@4.19.26
linux-libre-arm-omap2plus@4.14.104 linux-libre-arm-generic@4.20.13
linux-libre-arm-generic@4.19.26 linux-libre-arm-generic@4.14.104
cadaver@0.23.3 rtorrent@0.9.6 libmesode@0.9.2 restbed@4.6-1.6eb385f
virtuoso-ose@7.2.5 libtorrent@0.13.6 libstrophe@0.9.2
jupyter-guile-kernel@0.0.0-1.a7db924 clementine@1.3.1-2.4619a4c
linux-libre@4.9.161 linux-libre@4.4.176 linux-libre@4.20.13
linux-libre@4.19.26 linux-libre@4.14.104 synergy@1.10.1 moc@2.5.2
netsurf@3.8 git-minimal@2.21.0 kodi@18.1 mysql@5.7.23 strongswan@5.6.3
perl-crypt-openssl-rsa@0.31 perl-crypt-openssl-random@0.13 libcmis@0.5.2
git@2.21.0 hydra@20151030.1ff48da perl-crypt-openssl-bignum@0.09
links@2.18 neomutt@20180716 u-boot-tools@2019.01 burp@2.3.0
u-boot-nintendo-nes-classic-edition@2019.01 cgit@1.2.1 dillo@3.0.5
isync@1.3.0 testdisk@7.0 r-git2r@0.24.0 khtml@5.55.0 tinc@1.0.35
4store@1.1.6 u-boot-a20-olinuxino-micro@2019.01
u-boot-a20-olinuxino-lime2@2019.01 efitools@1.9.2
u-boot-a20-olinuxino-lime@2019.01 u-boot-bananapi-m2-ultra@2019.01
u-boot-am335x-boneblack@2019.01 u-boot-vexpress-ca9x4@2019.01
profanity@0.5.1 virt-viewer@7.0 irssi@1.1.2 wesnoth-server@1.14.6
u-boot-puma-rk3399@2019.01 u-boot-pine64-plus@2019.01 mariadb@10.1.37
u-boot-cubietruck@2019.01 u-boot-cubieboard@2019.01
u-boot-wandboard@2019.01 u-boot-mx6cuboxi@2019.01
u-boot-pinebook@2019.01 u-boot-malta@2019.01 xen@4.11.1 faust@2.5.23
mutt@1.11.3 sbsigntools@0.9.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
- Página com formas de contato:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Ativista do software livre (não confundir com o gratuito). Avaliador
da liberdade de software e de sites.
- Página com lista de contribuições:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Contribs
- Para uso em escritórios e trabalhos, favor enviar arquivos do padrão
internacional OpenDocument/ODF 1.2 (ISO/IEC 26300-1:2015 e
correlatos). São os .odt/.ods/.odp/odg. O LibreOffice é a suíte de
escritório recomendada para editar tais arquivos.
- Para outros formatos de arquivos, veja:
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Arquivos
- Gosta do meu trabalho? Contrate-me ou doe algo para mim!
https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#Suporte
- Use comunicações sociais federadas padronizadas, onde o "social"
permanece independente do fornecedor. #DeleteWhatsApp. Use #XMPP
(https://libreplanet.org/wiki/XMPP.pt), #DeleteFacebook
#DeleteInstagram #DeleteTwitter #DeleteYouTube. Use #ActivityPub via
#Mastodon (https://joinmastodon.org/).
- #DeleteNetflix #CancelNetflix. Evite #DRM:
https://www.defectivebydesign.org/
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 213 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread