Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote (Tue, 3 May 2022 10:22:35 +0200): > Hello Holger! > > On 5/2/22 16:10, Holger Wansing wrote: > > Apparently I did not got the point regarding non-free here, when reading > > this mail that day. > > > > Now I see that partman-hfs is in contrib, and that opened my eyes. > > I wonder if it's ok from the license point-of-view, to have a installer > > module from contrib in the installer? > > Doesn't this turn the whole installer into a no-longer DFSG-free piece of > > software? > > Only if you build CD images with the packages included which is not happening > by > default. I would argue it's similar to non-free images that are being built > with firmware included. > > > Or in other words: can we call such installer the "official > > Debian-Installer"? > > > > (There is another issue about non-free firmware to be included in the > > installer, and unofficial installer images were introduced for this; maybe > > this is a similar thing?) > > Yes. > > > Ahhh, another thought comes to mind: > > maybe this partman-hfs is for ports releases anyway, and not to be used in > > official release archs? > > It's part of unstable, so in principal, it can be used to build non-free > installer > images.
For which archs is this used? > Unfortunately, debian-cd currently seems unable to include udebs from contrib > and non-free which is why this has to be enabled in the codebase first anyway. > > However, I would appreciate it if you could add partman-hfs to the translation > project so it gets translated as all the other d-i packages. You are also very > welcome to perform uploads of the partman-hfs package yourself. > > As for the license issue: The hfsprogs package has been in main for a long > time > but then someone raised the severity of this license bug to serious and the > package had to be moved to non-free [1]. > > I would still argue that Apple's APSL should not be considered non-free, > especially > since Fedora ships the hfsplus-tools package with their normal distribution > [2] and > Fedora is known to be very strict when it comes to license questions. So even if partman-hfs is not used by default currently, the translations are currently used (translators work on it, if we add partman-hfs to the l10n machinery), so I wonder if this introduces a license issue for the translation files? (The po files contain the hint: "This file is distributed under the same license as debian-installer.") Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
