Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1029 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Let's keep acroread for pure reasons of usability.
  • From: Joschi Brauchle <joschi.brauchle@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 13:59:00 -0500
  • Message-id: <527D3474.1070403@tum.de>
May I ask a quick: (it may be answered elsewhere but I'm not sure as this thread has gone out of proportion)

In order to save some hassle for me and my institution, I currently branched the last available version of the openSUSE RPM of Adobe Reader in OBS.

I figured, as the package was available in the official openSUSE 'non-free' repos on OBS before and still is for < 13.1, this would be OK.

So is it OK to branch or not? There are several other non-official repos which have it branched currently. Is a branched package in a home repo in OBS technically still being distibuted by openSUSE?

Thanks for any help!



On 11/08/2013 06:46 AM, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Marcus Meissner <meissner@xxxxxxx> [2013-11-08 11:41]:
On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 10:01:18AM +0800, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Joschi Brauchle <joschi.brauchle@xxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,

I would also like to express my vote to keep Adobe Reader available in an
openSUSE customized version! Maybe not in NON-OSS repo, but possibly in
packman?

Hi, guys,

I would like to mention the basic design theory of Packman:

1. it's a separate project from openSUSE. eg, building packages for
openSUSE project doesn't mean they're the same.
2. it's an open source project. it aims to "workaround" for open
source multimedia projects that upstream warned about potential pa*ent
violations.

So a known commercial proprietary product isn't able to be in Packman,
esp. when it needs a new redistribution promission from Adobe. The
previous permission was issued to SUSE Linux and openSUSE. But not for
Packman. And Packman isn't able to accquire such permission, I think.
I don't know how exactly Packman is designed to be a firewall in law,
but it's common sense, if you're able to receive something from a
company, of course you're able to receive summon from a court too. So
I think maybe a non-existent-in-law project isn't an entity for just
deals. Meanwhile, as Adobe declared unmaintenance itself, of course it
will not issue such permissions after that.

License is not a big issue for Adobe Reader.

It requires a click-through shrinkwrap license. So having a license
confirmation dialog is sufficient.

No special contracts requried according to our understanding for Adobe
Reader.

Huh? From the Adobe Reader Licensing Agreement:

3.3 Distribution. This license does not grant you the right
to sublicense or distribute the Software. For information
about obtaining the right to distribute the Software on
tangible media or through an internal network or with your
product or service please refer to
http://www.adobe.com/go/acrobat_distribute for information
about Adobe Reader; or http://www.adobe.com/go/licensing for
information about the Adobe Runtimes.

On http://www.adobe.com/products/reader/distribution.html you can
apply for a license to distribute the reader under the following
terms:

3.2 Distribution. Distributor may:

[...]

(c) Distribute the Software, with the exception of ARH, as a
part of or with Distributor Product or Distributor Service
(i) through electronic means such as electronic download
--including, without limitation, electronic software
download-- for example bundled in Distributor’s installer,
which in turn, is downloaded through the Internet and (ii) on
physical media (such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, hard disk, etc.).

(d) Distribute ARH only (i) as bundled with the Distributor
Product or Service and (ii) (y) through electronic means such
as electronic download --including, without limitation,
electronic software download-- for example bundled in
Distributor's installer, which in turn, is downloaded through
the Internet and (z) on physical media (such as CD-ROMs,
DVDs, hard disk, etc.).

In all cases the Software is to be distributed in complete
form and only for purposes of complete installation and use
by the end user. The Software shall not be configured or
distributed for use without installation.

So that would not allow the package in its current form to be
distributed either, furthermore there is no legal entity behind
Packman which could negotiate a custom license to distribute and
even if there were this would pose a problem for mirrors.

Apart from that it will not enter Packman for the same reason it
was removed from openSUSE so this whole discussion is growing
increasingly pointless.


< Previous Next >
This Thread