FAAC considered nonfree by Debian and Parabola

  • Done
  • quality assurance status badge
Details
3 participants
  • Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
  • Liliana Marie Prikler
  • Mark H Weaver
Owner
unassigned
Submitted by
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli
Severity
normal
D
D
Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote on 28 Sep 2022 19:12
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
20220928191204.388f7411@primary_laptop
Hi,

The faac package is considered nonfree in Debian[1] and also in
Parabola because according to the Parabola blacklist faac "is a GPL'ed
package, but has non free code that can't be distributed under the
GPL"[2].

The path chosen by Parabola (and probably most other FSDG compliant or
100% free distributions) was to make the packages not depend on
faac.

A quick search in the Parabola packages list[3] can show some of the
packages having been (re)built without faac support[4].

Reference:
----------
[4]Parabola uses most Arch Linux packages as-is, and it excludes
problematic packages and/or replaces problematic packages. This is
why some of the replacement packages mention "without nonfree faac".

Denis.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1MBX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


L
L
Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 28 Sep 2022 21:22
8ae29a2b06f5f4b608d0a70cc3af2bb0932a5d03.camel@gmail.com
Am Mittwoch, dem 28.09.2022 um 19:12 +0200 schrieb Denis 'GNUtoo'
Carikli:
Toggle quote (10 lines)
> Hi,
>
> The faac package is considered nonfree in Debian[1] and also in
> Parabola because according to the Parabola blacklist faac "is a
> GPL'ed package, but has non free code that can't be distributed under
> the GPL"[2].
>
> The path chosen by Parabola (and probably most other FSDG compliant
> or 100% free distributions) was to make the packages not depend on
> faac.
Assuming one can clearly point out the non-free sources, the Guix way
would be removing those. If they can't easily be separated, then yeah,
it has to go.

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> A quick search in the Parabola packages list[3] can show some of the
> packages having been (re)built without faac support[4].
A list of packages relevant in Guix can be given using `guix refresh -l
faac'.


Cheers
M
M
Mark H Weaver wrote on 29 Sep 2022 00:41
Re: bug#58147: FAAC considered nonfree by Debian and Parabola
87y1u386kb.fsf@netris.org
Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com> writes:

Toggle quote (9 lines)
> Am Mittwoch, dem 28.09.2022 um 19:12 +0200 schrieb Denis 'GNUtoo'
> Carikli:
>> The path chosen by Parabola (and probably most other FSDG compliant
>> or 100% free distributions) was to make the packages not depend on
>> faac.
> Assuming one can clearly point out the non-free sources, the Guix way
> would be removing those. If they can't easily be separated, then yeah,
> it has to go.

The details are documented here:


Here's the relevant excerpt:

Toggle snippet (27 lines)
Files: libfaac/bitstream.*
libfaac/channels.c
libfaac/filtbank.c
libfaac/tns.*
Copyright: © 1996-1997
License: other
This software module was originally developed in the course of
development of the MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 Audio standard ISO/IEC 13818-7,
14496-1,2 and 3. This software module is an implementation of a part of
one or more MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 Audio tools as specified by the MPEG-2
NBC/MPEG-4 Audio standard. ISO/IEC gives users of the MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4
Audio standards free license to this software module or modifications
thereof for use in hardware or software products claiming conformance
to the MPEG-2 NBC/ MPEG-4 Audio standards. Those intending to use this
software module in hardware or software products are advised that this
use may infringe existing patents. The original developer of this
software module and his/her company, the subsequent editors and their
companies, and ISO/IEC have no liability for use of this software
module or modifications thereof in an implementation. Copyright is not
released for non MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 Audio conforming products. The
original developer retains full right to use the code for his/her own
purpose, assign or donate the code to a third party and to inhibit
third party from using the code for non MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 Audio
conforming products. This copyright notice must be included in all
copies or derivative works.

I also confirmed by looking at the indicated source files in the result
of "guix build -S faac". Not only do these copying permission notices
fail to grant the freedoms required by the free software definition, but
they explicitly say: "The original developer retains full right [...] to
inhibit third party from using the code for non MPEG-2 NBC/MPEG-4 Audio
conforming products." That clearly contradicts freedom 0.

Based on the file names, I very much doubt that this library works at
all without the nonfree source files. Therefore, we must remove the
'faac' package from Guix.

Thanks,
Mark

--
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts. Ask me about https://stallmansupport.org.
L
L
Liliana Marie Prikler wrote on 16 Oct 2022 14:00
c5fc1627d820f542cc75067f27c532a8caca5941.camel@gmail.com
Am Mittwoch, dem 28.09.2022 um 18:41 -0400 schrieb Mark H Weaver:
Toggle quote (6 lines)
> Based on the file names, I very much doubt that this library works at
> all without the nonfree source files.  Therefore, we must remove the
> 'faac' package from Guix.
>
>       Thanks,
>         Mark
Took me long enough, but I now removed it.

Cheers
Closed
?
Your comment

This issue is archived.

To comment on this conversation send an email to 58147@debbugs.gnu.org

To respond to this issue using the mumi CLI, first switch to it
mumi current 58147
Then, you may apply the latest patchset in this issue (with sign off)
mumi am -- -s
Or, compose a reply to this issue
mumi compose
Or, send patches to this issue
mumi send-email *.patch