maemo.org Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Installer shell scripts should not be proprietary software|
|Product:||[Maemo Official Platform] Development platform||Reporter:||Stephan Peijnik <speijnik>|
|Component:||installer||Assignee:||Janne Johansson <ext-janne.p.johansson>|
|Priority:||Low||CC:||andre_klapper, carsten.munk, speijnik|
It seems as if both maemo-scratchbox-installer_5.0.sh and maemo-sdk-install_5.0.sh are proprietary bits of software, owned by Nokia. Both files are bearing the following header: #!/bin/sh # Copyright (C) 2006-2009 Nokia Corporation # # This is proprietary software owned by Nokia Corporation. # # Contact: Maemo Integration <email@example.com> These installer scripts being proprietary could scare Free Software developers off, so could the license of these scripts possibly be changed?
Hi, well, a chosen license per-se is not a bug, hence changing severity. :-) What are the arguments to change the license? What technical issues does the current license create? Which license would you like to see here instead, and why exactly?
Reasons I (non-Nokian, IANAL) could see why maemo-sdk-install_5.0.sh is proprietary: * It deals with the user accepting a EULA in order to allow the user to use the bits in non-free. * It presents the source code offer from Nokia for GPL software Admittedly non-free are downloadable outside this script but the legality of you using them without the script is questionable. To make sure the EULA and such isn't twisted by modifications, the script is then closed (it requires a bit of brain gymnastics to see this..). Personally I don't see a problem in this method - it gives you rights to use the non-free bits for development, etc. You can download the open software straight from repository.maemo.org without it. You can write your own SDK setup without the non-free bits if you so wanted, with the accompanying loss of functionality.
(In reply to comment #1) > well, a chosen license per-se is not a bug, hence changing severity. :-) Oh, I missed that. > What are the arguments to change the license? Well, as I wrote in the bug report, this could scare people off. It is a "simple" installer script and as such should not contain any magic sauce. This may not be an argument, but shipping the SDK to an supposedly open platform using a proprietary script just doesn't feel right. > What technical issues does the current license create? I don't see any technical issues with the current license, but rather ethical ones. > Which license would you like to see here instead, and why exactly? Any Free Software license should do. As I tried pointing out above it just doesn't feel right to have the SDK ship using a proprietary installer and I can't imagine what piece of code could be in that installer that is "worth" protecting it via a proprietary license. Also, one could argue that nobody will look at the contents of these files, but experience GNU/Linux users and developers are unlikely to execute any script downloaded from the web without having a look at it first. (In reply to comment #2) > Reasons I (non-Nokian, IANAL) could see why maemo-sdk-install_5.0.sh is > proprietary: > > * It deals with the user accepting a EULA in order to allow the user to use the > bits in non-free. > * It presents the source code offer from Nokia for GPL software I see the point you are trying to make. However, just not showing that a piece of code is restricted by license X does not mean it doesn't apply. The source code offer on the other hand is only needed when *Nokia* distributes binary packages. > Admittedly non-free are downloadable outside this script but the legality of > you using them without the script is questionable. To make sure the EULA and > such isn't twisted by modifications, the script is then closed (it requires a > bit of brain gymnastics to see this..). I got pointers to the "manual" install method. I have to admit I didn't try that one yet, but does this one also present the user with an EULA? If not the point that the EULA needs to be presented is void, if shown when installing via method A, but not shown when installing via method B. > Personally I don't see a problem in this method - it gives you rights to use > the non-free bits for development, etc. You can download the open software > straight from repository.maemo.org without it. You can write your own SDK setup > without the non-free bits if you so wanted, with the accompanying loss of > functionality. Even if the installer script was non-proprietary I still wouldn't have the right to redistribute the non-free pieces of the SDK. Also the proprietary license of the script does not give me the right to do anything at all.
Less restrictive licensing exists for Maemo SDK+ (which is the current future) http://maemo-sdk.garage.maemo.org/install.html # (C) Copyright 2007-2009 by Nokia Corporation. All rights reserved. # # Contact: Ruslan Mstoi <firstname.lastname@example.org> # # Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person # obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation # files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without # restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, # copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell # copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the # Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following # conditions: # # The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be # included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. # # THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, # EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES # OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND # NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT # HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, # WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING # FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR # OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.