app-arch/rar is closed-source and licensed under EULA. Moreover, it's not even freeware >anyone may use the software during a test period of a maximum of 40 days at no charge But now its license is not indicated as EULA (like adobe flash, google-chrome, oracle java and others) and available for installation by default without editing /etc/portage/package.license (or ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf).
Our licenses/RAR seems to be outdated and should be synced from the license included e.g. in the rar-5.3.0 tarball. That said, clause 3 allows free distribution: 3. The software's trial version may be freely distributed, with exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not modified in any way. (In reply to qwerty from comment #0) > > anyone may use the software during a test period of a maximum of 40 days > > at no charge Copyright is about distribution, not about usage, and there is nothing that would force the user to agree to these terms. Disclaimer: IANAL, TINLA.
I do not consider the legal aspects. I just want to note. - adobe flash player - non-opensource, EULA - RAR - non-opensource, EULA emerge adobe-flash >The following license changes are necessary to proceed: >... emerge rar - it emerges, no any warning So, Why isn't 'RAR' presented as eula in '/usr/portage/profiles/license_groups'?
(In reply to qwerty from comment #2) > emerge adobe-flash > >The following license changes are necessary to proceed: > >... > emerge rar > - it emerges, no any warning That depends on your ACCEPT_LICENSE variable. I would recommend (and I guess most members of the license team will agree) a setting like "-* @FREE", in order to warn about anything non-free. > Why isn't 'RAR' presented as eula in '/usr/portage/profiles/license_groups'? "EULA" isn't a well-defined term. IMHO, anything that is freely distributable cannot be in the @EULA group. Also note that in many legislations the user has the right to compile, run, backup, and patch a program which he has lawfully acquired; he doesn't need the approval of the copyright holder for any of these actions. @License team: Any other opinions? IANAL, TINLA.
It seems that the licence of RAR has changed a bit: http://www.win-rar.com/winrarlicense.html?&L=0 (I haven’t checked what licence is in the tarball itself though.) Given that before §3, there is also §2, which says: > 2. Anyone may use this software during a test period of 40 days. > Following this test period of 40 days or less, if you wish to > continue to use RAR, you must purchase a license. I would very much consider that to fall under the @EULA, especially since it’s basically trialware/try-before-you-buy. That being said, is there any other shareware (e.g. trialware) that we have in Gentoo and is there any policy regarding that?
(In reply to Matija "hook" Šuklje from comment #4) > Given that before §3, there is also §2, which says: > > > 2. Anyone may use this software during a test period of 40 days. > > Following this test period of 40 days or less, if you wish to > > continue to use RAR, you must purchase a license. I very much doubt that this would be enforceable. The package can be freely distributed by clause 3. There is nothing in copyright law that would stop the user from using the package once so obtained. Also there is no contract between the licensor and the user that would enforce the license. IANAL, TINLA.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #5) > I very much doubt that this would be enforceable. The package can be freely > distributed by clause 3. There is nothing in copyright law that would stop > the user from using the package once so obtained. Also there is no contract > between the licensor and the user that would enforce the license. At least in the new version that I linked the wording of §3 now explicitly talks about the trial version (emphasis mine): > 3. The software's **trial version** may be freely distributed, with exceptions > noted below, provided the distribution package is not modified in any way. > […] There is also §§3.b and c, which put further restriction on distribution (I haven’t checked the ebuilds yet if we’re cool or not): > b. The software's unlicensed trial version may not be distributed inside of > any other software package without written permission. The software must > remain in the original unmodified installation file for download without any > barrier and conditions to the user such as collecting fees for the download > or making the download conditional on the user giving his contact data. > c. The unmodified installation file of WinRAR must be provided pure and > unpaired. Any bundling is interdicted. In particular the use of any install > or download software which is providing any kind of download bundles is > prohibited unless granted by win.rar GmbH in written form. I’d argue that distribution is not entirely free and that @EULA should be the right licence group. It is likely doable to package in in Gentoo legally though, but we should make sure we don’t alter the installer or the software. TINLA, IANYL ;)
(In reply to Matija "hook" Šuklje from comment #6) > At least in the new version that I linked the wording of §3 now explicitly > talks about the trial version (emphasis mine): > > > 3. The software's **trial version** may be freely distributed, with > > exceptions noted below, provided the distribution package is not modified > > in any way. […] AFAICS, we distribute the trial version. So no problems with this part. (?) > There is also §§3.b and c, which put further restriction on distribution > (I haven’t checked the ebuilds yet if we’re cool or not): > > > b. The software's unlicensed trial version may not be distributed inside > > of any other software package without written permission. The software > > must remain in the original unmodified installation file for download > > without any barrier and conditions to the user such as collecting fees > > for the download or making the download conditional on the user giving > > his contact data. > > > c. The unmodified installation file of WinRAR must be provided pure and > > unpaired. Any bundling is interdicted. In particular the use of any > > install or download software which is providing any kind of download > > bundles is prohibited unless granted by win.rar GmbH in written form. > > I’d argue that distribution is not entirely free and that @EULA should > be the right licence group. It is likely doable to package in in Gentoo > legally though, but we should make sure we don’t alter the installer or > the software. Let's play it safe and add the license to the @EULA group then. This necessarily requires RESTRICT="mirror" though (because we cannot ask mirror operators to agree to any EULA). Also, according to acknow.txt in the tarball, "BSD" and "BSD-2" should be added to the ebuild's LICENSE variable.
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #7) > This necessarily requires RESTRICT="mirror" [...] Or rather, RESTRICT="mirror bindist", because distributing a binpkg will (arguably) violate clauses 3b and 3c.
commit ba0d400495412f54664b43dff191faeb6df3729b Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> Date: Wed Oct 26 00:47:32 2016 +0200 app-arch/rar: Update LICENSE, add mirror and bindist restrictions. Bug: 596154 Package-Manager: portage-2.3.2 commit b7a698c6321f194f2f69db8f5d3a98ca2a84fb42 Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> Date: Wed Oct 26 00:40:55 2016 +0200 licenses: Update RAR license from app-arch/rar-5.3.0 tarball. Also add RAR to the EULA license group. Bug: 596154
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #8) > (In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #7) > > This necessarily requires RESTRICT="mirror" [...] > > Or rather, RESTRICT="mirror bindist", because distributing a binpkg will > (arguably) violate clauses 3b and 3c. Agreed. While we could probably get away with both, let’s play it safe and use both restrictions.
Right. The crucial sentence in the new version is: The following agreement regarding RAR (and its Windows version - WinRAR) archiver - referred to as "software" - is made between win.rar GmbH - referred to as "licensor" - and anyone who is installing, accessing or in any other way using the software - referred to as "user". This passage, which was not there in the previous version, fully transforms it from a license to a license agreement (i.e., a contract). We cannot ask mirror operators to consent to such agreements.
