[gNewSense-users] Re: gNewSense-users Digest, Vol 12, Issue 31

[Peter Rock]

Hi all, Kevin and Chris. Thanks very much for your suggestions and
information regarding the "elilo-installer" package. I contacted
debian legal and the maintainers. It appears as though the copyright
notice being absent was an oversight. Several developers responded
stating that they have no problem with the package being under GPLv2.
Another stated that it was derived from lilo which is under the GPL.
My understanding is that any discussion as to how the developers feel
like licensing elilo-installer is then irrelevant. If it is derived
from GPL code, then it too must be GPL.

For now, I have marked the package free and under "GPLv2" but noted
that the license was missing due to an oversight.

Thanks again for teaching me. :)

> From: "Kevin M. Dean" <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Teach Me
> To: Peter Rock <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> Interesting catch. :)
>
> Debian packages contain a few things. The first is a set of text files
> that give information on the package (dependancies, package maintainer,
> conflicts and so on) and contain basic information on how to compile and
> install the package. This is the "control" aspect of the package.
>
> The second part is "data", which in the VAST majority of cases contains
> binary files that will be installed.
>
> An empty package doesn't actually install anything, just runs the
> "setup" scripts.
>
> HOWEVER... That's somewhat irrelevant here, considering that
> elilo-installer isn't a Debian package, it's a udeb.
>
> udebs are used during the Debian Installer process to set variables and
> do bulk package installation depending on those variables. In this case,
> elilo-installer checks the architecture, and if it's an amd64-Mac or an
> Intel Itanium architecture, it installs elilo as the boot loader. If it
> is NOT one of those architectures it does nothing.
>
> This packages, as of this moment, is useless in gNewSense BUT may be
> useful in the future if and when there is a naitive AMD64 port.
>
> As to the license, I'm not "technically" sure what the non-software
> aspects of a debian package are... My guess would be that they're public
> domain, but that's ONLY a guess. Whatever it is, it complies with the
> DFSG which almost certainly is Free Software.
>
> I'd recommend e-mailing the debian-legal mailing list and asking for
> clarification on this; it could have some very interesting reprecussions.
>
> - -Kevin

> From: "Chris Andrew" <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] Teach Me
> To: "Peter Rock" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden
>
> Peter,
>
> I had a similar problem with SILO (Sparc version of lilo).
>
> http://bugs.gnewsense.org/Bugs/00101
>
> With regard to your question, I would check the package for the
> maintainer's details, and then email him/ her for confirmation of
> details.  When I contacted the maintainer to do with SILO, it prompted
> a copyright/ licence info page for the package, which had been
> overlooked.
>
> I also tried Sourceforge and Google, to guide me, in-case the
> maintainer wasn't helpful (he was).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris.