From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Darrington Subject: Re: Unrar package might contain proprietary code. Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:20:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20170301202009.GA22689@jocasta.intra> References: <87h93cn4ye.fsf@lassieur.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48253) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjAjQ-0004jH-SI for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:20:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cjAjO-0001de-5I for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:20:16 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87h93cn4ye.fsf@lassieur.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Cl??ment Lassieur Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, John Darrington --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 08:59:37PM +0100, Cl??ment Lassieur wrote: I had a look at the source of the recently commited "unrar" package, a= nd I could not find neither "copyright" lines nor pointers to the full notice, except in unrarlib.h and unrarlib.c, which belong to a differe= nt project. IANAL, but according to GPLv2 and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html, those things are mandatory, COPYING is not enough. So I think the "unrar" package contains proprietary code. I think you are mistaken. Yes, the package does not explicitly have headers in the way that GNU reco= mmends. But I do not see how such a recommendation is "mandatory". (It's mandatory = for gnu programs, but there are many non-gnu programs in Guix) The placement of COPYING - whilst normally not all that we would like - is part performance of an intent to licence the software. Like you say, the authors have taken GPL code from another project and inco= rporated it into unrar - that is only possible if the the resultant work is GPL comp= atible. Also if you look at the site where it is hosted https://gna.org/projects/un= rar you will see that it says: License: GNU General Public License V2 or later. So, whilst it has been poorly executed, I believe there is ample evidence t= hat this=20 program is licenced GPL. J' --=20 Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3=20 fingerprint =3D 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key. --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAli3LPkACgkQimdxnC3oJ7PDBACffw4m9GNPl0JyDXBfd2Lp+BV8 SGQAniFS2X2ZMhIY0erPPJbI28Bhg6Ob =Z98E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W/nzBZO5zC0uMSeA--