search

shidel / fd-nls

Language contributions and submissions for software related to FreeDOS
GNU General Public License v2.0
24 stars 17 forks source link

Various license problems in the package list #137

Closed cardpuncher closed 1 year ago

cardpuncher commented 2 years ago

Hi,

While updating the package list with the FD-NLS app and now that the license field is translatable, I noticed several problems. Here's a non exhaustive list as a reminder:

Boring stuff, indeed... :)

shidel commented 2 years ago
  • Many packages have a license field that indicates "Free w/sources". In such a case, what's the meaning of free? At no cost, gratis or free as in freedom?

Free of charge... No Cost.

  • There are several instances of programs that are explicitly non-free (Freeware, CC BY-ND, source code not available and so on). IMHO it would be nice to either remove them, or at least move them to another repository. It's not like those would prefer to use proprietary stuff are lacking alternatives (SvarDOS springs to mind).

Actually, they are in separate repositories. The MASTER.CSV file that contains all of the package descriptions is generated by combining the listing files from two separate repositories. The Official Repository on ibiblio that contains packages that can be included a release (with only a couple exceptions) is imported. Then My unofficial repo is checked for anything that is not provided on ibiblio. That includes popular things like 4DOS and others. If a package in the Unofficial repo is not in the Official repo, it is then added. At present I think there is about 50 or so packages in the Unofficial Repo that are not in the Official repo for licensing and other reasons.

At some point in the future when I get motivated and have the time, FDIMPLES will get networking and provide support to pull packages from multiple online repositories.

Eventually, the tools that combine them should include the SOURCE repo. And, the FD-NLS app should identify where it is for and provide the ability to Filter them based on the repository.

  • In almost all cases, the license is indicated without stating if following versions are allowed. IMHO it would be better to indicate "GNU General Public License, Version 3+" (or something like any later version) instead of just "Version 3".

For a long time, the Licensing Information was neglected. For example, a package might be GPLv2+ but only said GPL. Or for example, said open source when it was MIT License. Although it is much better than it was originally, it still needs more work and corrections.

I would stick with exactly what the license says. If it is says "Version 2" use that. Or if it says "2 or later", use it. We should avoid trying to make assumptions.

  • There's a mistake for the license of the GPLv2 document. Its license is not GPLv2 but verbatim copying.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

That will need check and/or fixed. It is possible that either the version we have is listed with the wrong license. Or possible, it is multiple licenses. Or maybe, it could have changed licenses in later versions.

  • FreeDOS Password indicates GPLv2.1+ as its license, even in its source code, the problem is that such a version never existed in the first place. Maybe it should have been LGPL? Should I ping Mateusz about that?

Don't want to assume. We should get clarification from Mateusz.

shidel commented 2 years ago

Oh since it is NOT editable in FD-NLS (at present), you should provide me with a list of exactly which packages you have seen with incorrect licenses. That way I can correct their metadata.

cardpuncher commented 2 years ago

On 1.07.2022 17:53, shidel wrote:

  * Many packages have a license field that indicates "Free
    w/sources". In such a case, what's the meaning of free? At no
    cost, gratis or free as in freedom?

Free of charge... No Cost.

Crap. I translated it as free as in freedom. I'll need to correct these entries. A new PR should arrive next week. I would suggest to use something else in English in the future, like "gratis" or "free of charge" to avoid confusion.

At some point in the future when I get motivated and have the time, FDIMPLES will get networking and provide support to pull packages from multiple online repositories.

Eventually, the tools that combine them should include the SOURCE repo. And, the FD-NLS app should identify where it is for and provide the ability to Filter them based on the repository.

That would be great, thanks!

  * In almost all cases, the license is indicated without stating if
    following versions are allowed. IMHO it would be better to
    indicate "GNU General Public License, Version 3+" (or something
    like any later version) instead of just "Version 3".

I would stick with exactly what the license says. If it is says "Version 2" use that. Or if it says "2 or later", use it. We should avoid trying to make assumptions.

OK, that's what I did so we're (almost) in the clear on that front. What I was merely suggesting is that for many programs, the file headers say something like "

  * There's a mistake for the license of the GPLv2 document. Its
    license is not GPLv2 but verbatim copying.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the line 176 of the csv file which is an entry for the GNU GPLv2 text. And its copying policy cell states that its license is GPLv2 whereas it should have been verbatim copying as the GNU GPL license text itself states that "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

id title description summary keywords platforms copying-policy sha gplv2 GPLv2 Document GNU General Public License, Version 2 freedos, gpl DOS GNU General Public License, Version 2 fe4cca5d84b5c6b6355bb2c3bfc28970d773737ba48fdddc4e0be50b4ad2a937

[LAME] will need check and/or fixed. It is possible that either the version we have is listed with the wrong license. Or possible, it is multiple licenses. Or maybe, it could have changed licenses in later versions.

I checked https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/distributions/1.2/repos/sound/lame.zip and it looks like it's LGPL 2.0+. They seem to have updated the license later to LGPL 2.1+. In all cases, it's not GPLv2.

  * FreeDOS Password indicates GPLv2.1+ as its license, even in its
    source code, the problem is that such a version never existed in
    the first place. Maybe it should have been LGPL? Should I ping
    Mateusz about that?

Don't want to assume. We should get clarification from Mateusz.

OK, I'll send him a word and post an update when I receive an answer.

Oh since it is NOT editable in FD-NLS (at present), you should provide me with a list of exactly which packages you have seen with incorrect licenses. That way I can correct their metadata.

GPLv2, LAME and password (for which I'll send a message to Mateusz).

cardpuncher commented 2 years ago

On 1.07.2022 17:53, shidel wrote:

  * FreeDOS Password indicates GPLv2.1+ as its license, even in its
    source code, the problem is that such a version never existed in
    the first place. Maybe it should have been LGPL? Should I ping
    Mateusz about that?

Don't want to assume. We should get clarification from Mateusz.

I got a reply from Mateusz. Hey says that "the FoxCubs library is LGPL 2.1-licensed (although curiously the license introduction appears mistyped), while the FD Password program itself is GPL 2+."

The FoxCubs.pas file has a mistake in the license header (the "Lesser" word appears to be forgotten), and the Password.pas file is indeed under GPLv2+.

Hope this clarifies the license situation of this program.

shidel commented 2 years ago

I think this can be closed now.

cardpuncher commented 2 years ago

On 9.08.2022 17:52, shidel wrote:

I think this can be closed now.

OK for me. Some stuff isn't yet updated in the csv file but it can certainly be done later.

As a side note, please note that for the title of biew, in the English version one can read "Beye" and for ftetris, the keyword is "hangman".

shidel commented 2 years ago

OK for me. Some stuff isn't yet updated in the csv file but it can certainly be done later.

Thats actually a multi-fold issue.

First, the CSV (English version) is created from the CSV listing files generated by the repositories at official ibiblio and my personal (larger). Those repos generate their listing.csv file based on the zip packages in their repos. The MASTER CSV will use IBIBLIO's version when present and falls back to FD.LOD.BZ version when needed. Those packages need changed to change the english information.

However, this has nothing to do with the FreeDOS release anymore. All packages in the release come directly from the FreeDOS GitLab Archive. Those packages contain the latest English information. I also run automated routines that pull translation updates from FD-NLS into those projects. Those are done individually and occasionally on mass.

Eventually, a couple other things will need to happen. First, the MASTER.CSV will need to be setup to prefer the GitLab Archive over both IBIBLIO and FD.LOD.BZ. That will not be a simple matter. There is no CSV file there and everything is spread out over multiple-projects in metadata files. At some point, a method of updating the packages in the repos when the source projects in the archive are modified. But there are numerous technical issues the complicate that. For example, the network package updater will not update packages with the same version number.

In the meantime, here is what it boils down to. Items in the master CSV file are most likely only updated when the version of a package get's updated.