From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp11.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id rvEYBNPbV2IadgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:31:15 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS id +OecANPbV2InWgAA9RJhRA (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:31:15 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9051145010 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:31:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:35576 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1neusj-0002aS-L8 for larch@yhetil.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:31:13 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52886) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1neusY-0002Ym-Op for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:31:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:32954) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1neusY-0007mf-FM for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:31:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1neusY-0008Nl-B0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:31:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: [bug#32947] Add java-xalan. Resent-From: Maxime Devos Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:31:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 32947 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix-patches X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch To: Frank Pursel Cc: 32947@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 32947-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B32947.164992501929111 (code B ref 32947); Thu, 14 Apr 2022 08:31:02 +0000 Received: (at 32947) by debbugs.gnu.org; 14 Apr 2022 08:30:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55084 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1neurq-0007Yw-Nt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:30:19 -0400 Received: from laurent.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.137.89]:38672) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1neurn-0007Tr-Nj for 32947@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:30:18 -0400 Received: from ptr-bvsjgyhxw7psv60dyze.18120a2.ip6.access.telenet.be ([IPv6:2a02:1811:8c09:9d00:3c5f:2eff:feb0:ba5a]) by laurent.telenet-ops.be with bizsmtp id JYWD2700c4UW6Th01YWEMq; Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:30:14 +0200 Message-ID: From: Maxime Devos Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 10:30:09 +0200 In-Reply-To: References: <87y217gjfa.fsf@Ginko.local.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <5f00452a6bed768c7df78fee59c045f08d1a8dce.camel@telenet.be> <2533f258c513aeb666823c6c3a48748f988a9ee6.camel@telenet.be> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-b/GhZx9POuoUUc5I1vuB" User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telenet.be; s=r22; t=1649925014; bh=CaUP2K/NU3ejxHSKNnQ6C8ZYKMeheWlDVmD9hqsbmE8=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=malH6sA87mqnjwtxLXUAfwxlcEv6y9dzNiYTw7eDc4n7DXFkZL0Cs/jZQBiVnfu9x LAGVdOVpwnTnjvW1YDQzjn80cmSGucX3ZQ0MWWPQwletELPcX9DsMPqLNb2cH0uKOh HO5t5z83vxoUAr5g6cjUOAG2PlP40/UwSU505BPJ/wCetlvulb52nzzmruBMKKI/Pk GUcmNNBwrh5g6vDXWdftZAdsjGDktWjRLpcHo/zykodd7idXPSrlRCw5qLFfjorAa9 am2NnLvwWt+I/vybGHEHCshVPaLelpRLY5oO4eESfOL1nqTLUziNlwiif5Ed9pdBan uZREZcUDjEtaA== X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: guix-patches@gnu.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-To: larch@yhetil.org X-Migadu-Country: US ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1649925074; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:resent-cc:resent-from:resent-sender: resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references: list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post: dkim-signature; bh=CaUP2K/NU3ejxHSKNnQ6C8ZYKMeheWlDVmD9hqsbmE8=; b=ddC+6pKj5AXXdSR8BnSTMq6KgZ3BMvTQxj/JBYOGNcHx0mumgVhsa15CqmtYuvU/g92rI5 a2XdLtIHFsroOcjcoX5iwEHUk+VkPROSmMYGPIFn8pgaSwxVGZhfDA+uqHEMb6qnRqn2QB SrZMYFO2+t8XjV6yslmv37BoVhNPYXa4b2CPdZDQsozWiE47YIZf/zMLVcc5oZeRJO6+Hx ohZVaJUI2Zvenk9Rn6cHJHdo08ww4oveJpa3bucjkDVKnVBx0EzdSnggyEGK8JdUd0XUiw c+uhVz3zZyoLCd348gyZ9XSJHEvHZDuuCMPaZA4DKduL+bF6nhDkqDAEZrscfg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1649925074; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=opFLdbRsUGROFLagYFcDJZUhJhbwQ+RQB7GvFBZ4ugG2f1Q06fnmNYyS58EWSlWG9Wsjyc kSp6AyEWdZVqjtXdCDCj1UQ8JG8SEGFmK7C6JnIkCE+Wvk45B1dkPetucJngWUYMRqaeJr QSQ388/Zm5DYQHunxK07Rjada5G/FMKIJ57jBxNRZkb7QyDXIKIvDLWHutGiiIxD4FV1jC ml6sraIe/i7TuWixhnCWLL4Lbpk+kEcpbWRXGNiZSYT7xdyuJ2f3lRkkqVTnBRJetwUGdX b15VI12g6GXTB7Xri9vmsDqdgiMkl6ONxUNKQ1uvCCBJ161wHkeaESy+RW1Wag== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=telenet.be header.s=r22 header.b=malH6sA8; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=telenet.be (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 3.05 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=telenet.be header.s=r22 header.b=malH6sA8; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=telenet.be (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-patches-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 9051145010 X-Spam-Score: 3.05 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: HTyHcUyi7ubA --=-b/GhZx9POuoUUc5I1vuB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Frank Pursel schreef op wo 13-04-2022 om 23:43 [+0000]: > I think that IntStack.java has almost no economic value and so the > comparison to a commercial package is not really appropriate. It is not about the commercial aspect, it is about the potential proprietariness. > We are not asking for a bug fix, or for clarification of a > behaviour. Violating the (copyright, maybe contract) law seems like a bug to me (TBC it is not known yet if this is the case, it just seems plausible to me at this moment). > We are questioning if they are meeting their own stated > licensing criteria! The problem is not if Apacha meets their own license (it seems that they do, since they explicitly release the source code with their license headers etc. The potential problem is Sun's licensing of JDK1.0, which we (as distribution) might indirectly be in violation of by including java-xalan. Also, it's all about how the question is framed -- asking =E2=80=98did you violate the licensing terms=E2=80=99 doesn't seem advisable, but =E2=80=98D= oes IntStack indeed come from JDK1.0, and if so, can I use it under the ASL license like the rest?=E2=80=99 would just be asking for confirmation (and somewhat positive, because it seems to imply we want to use xalan). > I would feel bad asking this of them because I imagine they > are no better equipped to answer questions about JDK1.0 than we are. They are probably not well-equipped to answer questions about JDK1.0.=20 However, they _are_ well-equiped to answer questions about theirselves, presumably they remember what they mean by @since and where their source code came from. > Worse, if we believe such impropriety is possible why would be > believe what they tell us anyway? FWIW, IMO it would only be impropriety because of the current law (and somewhat unclear attribution). Also, by assuming good faith. > I think to ask for this to be investigated, > at minimum, you would need to find the actual file from JDK1.0 that > you feel was appropriated. JDK1.0 is propietary, why would I look into its sources? Also, probably the sources aren't available anyway, given that it is proprietary. > I don't think we should be asking upstream > to work on investigation of a suspicious licensing that cannot > improve their software in any functional way. Moving from being in violation in the law to not seems like a functional improvement to me (assuming it was actually in violation, which has not been determined). Illegal software is, for many practical purposes, not functional. More generally, ignorance is not an excuse, and I imagine willfull ignorance to be even less so. Anyway, I've sent a mail upstream, presumably it will eventually appear in the archive at . Greetings, Maxime. --=-b/GhZx9POuoUUc5I1vuB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iI0EABYKADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYlfbkRccbWF4aW1lZGV2 b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7gGvAQCyYasSS6fCQkMQJdBbOcZiRjPT vP6M0Ve02v7KaNgZHwEAtLKgkiTddlKwHsV1xUG+oGQcRIPDvZUPj1wmKCXliQk= =QsoF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-b/GhZx9POuoUUc5I1vuB--