JNOS in Debian

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JNOS in Debian

Iain R. Learmonth-2
Hi,

I came across JNOS today and it looks like an interesting piece of software
that it would be nice to include in Debian.

Unfortunately, this license that it has been released under "available to
all for amateur radio use only" is not Debian Free Software Guidelines
compliant and so it would not be possible to include this software in the
main Debian repositories.

Section 6 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines requires that licenses have
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". You can read more about the
Debian Free Software Guidelines on the Debian website:

  https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Would you consider relicensing this software under a license that is
compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines in your next release?

For more information on compatiable licenses, the Debian Wiki has more
information:

  https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

If you are willing to relicense this software, I would be happy to look at
packaging it for Debian.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49

attachment0 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

David A Aitcheson
Iain,

IN MY OPINION...

This is one that is best left as is and NOT put in the Repositories. It is used only by a select few that really understand it and can control it properly. For this package to get wider exposure to those that would abuse it and perhaps use it against us is of concern to me.

Dave
KB3EFS

On 03/09/15 10:01, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
Hi,

I came across JNOS today and it looks like an interesting piece of software
that it would be nice to include in Debian.

Unfortunately, this license that it has been released under "available to
all for amateur radio use only" is not Debian Free Software Guidelines
compliant and so it would not be possible to include this software in the
main Debian repositories.

Section 6 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines requires that licenses have
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". You can read more about the
Debian Free Software Guidelines on the Debian website:

  https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Would you consider relicensing this software under a license that is
compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines in your next release?

For more information on compatiable licenses, the Debian Wiki has more
information:

  https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

If you are willing to relicense this software, I would be happy to look at
packaging it for Debian.

Thanks,
Iain.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Nate Bargmann-4
In reply to this post by Iain R. Learmonth-2
It will be interesting to see the reply.

As I recall JNOS is a derivative of KA9Q NOS which, in turn, came from
K5JB's NET.  The original K5JB is a silent key.  I had the pleasure of
meeting and knowing Joe personally about two decades ago when I lived in
Oklahoma.

Without looking, relicensing may be impossible as there were likely
other contributors along the way.

Good luck.

73, Nate

--

"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds.  The pessimist fears this is true."

Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150309194845.GN2910@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JNOS in Debian

Jerome Kutche
In reply to this post by Iain R. Learmonth-2
Opinion... I needs to remain for HAM USE ONLY...
 Easily download and installed under debian...
73 jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain R. Learmonth [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 10:01 AM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: JNOS in Debian

Hi,

I came across JNOS today and it looks like an interesting piece of software
that it would be nice to include in Debian.

Unfortunately, this license that it has been released under "available to
all for amateur radio use only" is not Debian Free Software Guidelines
compliant and so it would not be possible to include this software in the
main Debian repositories.

Section 6 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines requires that licenses have
"No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor". You can read more about the
Debian Free Software Guidelines on the Debian website:

  https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

Would you consider relicensing this software under a license that is
compliant with the Debian Free Software Guidelines in your next release?

For more information on compatiable licenses, the Debian Wiki has more
information:

  https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses

If you are willing to relicense this software, I would be happy to look at
packaging it for Debian.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4299/9264 - Release Date: 03/09/15


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/006101d05ab6$45c01bb0$d1405310$@uronode.n9lya.ampr.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Iain R. Learmonth-2
In reply to this post by David A Aitcheson
Hi All,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 06:13:22PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> Opinion... I needs to remain for HAM USE ONLY...
>  Easily download and installed under debian...

This view is not in line with the Debian Social Contract and I'm actually
suprised by these responses, especially that there was more than one.

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:37:46PM -0400, David A Aitcheson wrote:
>    This is one that is best left as is and NOT put in the Repositories. It
>    is used only by a select few that really understand it and can control
>    it properly. For this package to get wider exposure to those that would
>    abuse it and perhaps use it against us is of concern to me.

How exactly would this package be abused and used against us? I think
there's something I'm missing here. I must say, I've not looked at it in
massive detail yet.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49

attachment0 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Iain R. Learmonth-2
In reply to this post by Nate Bargmann-4
Hi Nate,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:48:45PM -0500, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> As I recall JNOS is a derivative of KA9Q NOS which, in turn, came from
> K5JB's NET.  The original K5JB is a silent key.  I had the pleasure of
> meeting and knowing Joe personally about two decades ago when I lived in
> Oklahoma.

Yes, I did see it had quite a history.

> Without looking, relicensing may be impossible as there were likely
> other contributors along the way.

I have a feeling this may be the case, but it's always worth a try.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49

attachment0 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: JNOS in Debian

Jerome Kutche
In reply to this post by Iain R. Learmonth-2
Easily... Net44 is ham radio only ... So is Jnos.. Please research this
prior to making any regrettable changes..

That is all I ask.. 73 jerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Iain R. Learmonth [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2015 8:09 PM
To: [hidden email]
Cc: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: JNOS in Debian

Hi All,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 06:13:22PM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> Opinion... I needs to remain for HAM USE ONLY...
>  Easily download and installed under debian...

This view is not in line with the Debian Social Contract and I'm actually
suprised by these responses, especially that there was more than one.

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 03:37:46PM -0400, David A Aitcheson wrote:
>    This is one that is best left as is and NOT put in the Repositories. It
>    is used only by a select few that really understand it and can control
>    it properly. For this package to get wider exposure to those that would
>    abuse it and perhaps use it against us is of concern to me.

How exactly would this package be abused and used against us? I think
there's something I'm missing here. I must say, I've not looked at it in
massive detail yet.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4299/9271 - Release Date: 03/10/15


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/003501d05b82$95b55730$c1200590$@uronode.n9lya.ampr.org

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Iain R. Learmonth-2
In reply to this post by Iain R. Learmonth-2
Hi All,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:01:18PM +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> I came across JNOS today and it looks like an interesting piece of software
> that it would be nice to include in Debian.

There was a fair bit of discussion around this so this is just an email to
let everyone know what is happening.

While this software falls directly under the scope of the team and it would
be useful to have in Debian, this is non-free software, and so could not be
included in main.

There have been many many many contributors to this codebase, and
relicensing will not be easy, though has not been entirely ruled out.

This software has a lot of history behind it and I think it's awesome that
it's still going and still in active use. I hope that licensing issues are
not the reason this software falls out of use or ceases development when it
does.

The license used was a "semi-permissive" license. The only violation of the
DFSG I could see was that it restricted use by field of endevour. Some
seemed to think this was a good thing, and you're entitled to your opinions,
but I'd just like to quickly outline a couple of examples where restricting
software to "amateur radio use only" actually harms the hobby:

1) In the UK, it is permissible to use AX.25 on one of the CB channels.
There are also provisions for this in Europe. Restricting the use of packet
software to only amateur radio use, users of CB would not fall under this,
as amateur radio is well defined in law. This means that those that may have
found this software as a gateway into the hobby, where they find they are
interested and get themselves licensed so they can experiment more, are left
out.

2) I'm an Internet Engineering researcher at a University. I have recently
been playing with enhancing TCP for use on AX.25 packet links. I'm not able
to use amateur radio if I'm being paid for it so would have to perform these
experiments in a bit of private spectrum. I would not be able to modify and
use software that is restricted to "amateur radio use only" as I'm working
in private spectrum, and again, this doesn't fit the legal definition of
amateur radio. I would have to duplicate the work, then perform the
experiments, and I wouldn't be able to contribute the code back directly. I
would then have to put on my amateur radio hat and write the code again for
it to be useful to the non-free software.

It was mentioned that JNOS is restricted to using IP addresses from the 44/8
network. It's also worth mentioning that in the UK, the TCP/IP packet
networks I've seen on VHF use RFC1918 addresses. To enable quick
experimentation, this is far easier than going through the AMPRnet portal
and waiting for a co-ordinator to allocate you a subnet to use. I would see
this as a bug, not a feature.

So, sadly, for now, JNOS will not be entering Debian. If you are looking for
node software, Dave MM3ZRZ is currently working on packaging UROnode and
this will be available in the repositories after the release of jessie. We
will be looking to remove ax25-node from the repositories after this, which
would free up the "node" name also allowing it to be used by nodejs if they
want it. (They currently rename the interpreter to nodejs from node which
has caused me, and I'm guessing others, some not easy to spot problems with
scripts).

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49

attachment0 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Hans Oeste
Ian and Debian Group.

I have read through this email with dismay, and ended with anger.

While I agree that you can make decisions as to the direction of Debian, I believe that you're pushing your decisions into the region of fanatical/puritanical  obsession.   That's all well and good as there's always choice in supporting this distribution or not.

BUT in reading your last paragraph where you suggest that because because ax25-node is being dropped by you, Debian, it is now alright for nodejs to hijack/appropiate this name, 'node' is entirely past anything I can tolerate.  It seems to me that you are speaking far to sweepingly for the Linux Community in general and you're actually looking to reintroduce the 'bug' that originally existed.  Debian it's self required, nay forced the name change originally even though node had been used by ax25 far longer than the js folks.

Please do not presume to speak for the entire Linux community; you've already forced one change because of "node", and now you invite yet another that can cause harm to other distributions through churn and who knows what else.

Please remember that you're not the only fish/distribution out there.  You shouldn't be poisoning the environment for others.

Hans Oeste
VE7OES


On Sat, 2015-03-21 at 10:35 +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
Hi All,

On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 02:01:18PM +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:
> I came across JNOS today and it looks like an interesting piece of software
> that it would be nice to include in Debian.

There was a fair bit of discussion around this so this is just an email to
let everyone know what is happening.

While this software falls directly under the scope of the team and it would
be useful to have in Debian, this is non-free software, and so could not be
included in main.

There have been many many many contributors to this codebase, and
relicensing will not be easy, though has not been entirely ruled out.

This software has a lot of history behind it and I think it's awesome that
it's still going and still in active use. I hope that licensing issues are
not the reason this software falls out of use or ceases development when it
does.

The license used was a "semi-permissive" license. The only violation of the
DFSG I could see was that it restricted use by field of endevour. Some
seemed to think this was a good thing, and you're entitled to your opinions,
but I'd just like to quickly outline a couple of examples where restricting
software to "amateur radio use only" actually harms the hobby:

1) In the UK, it is permissible to use AX.25 on one of the CB channels.
There are also provisions for this in Europe. Restricting the use of packet
software to only amateur radio use, users of CB would not fall under this,
as amateur radio is well defined in law. This means that those that may have
found this software as a gateway into the hobby, where they find they are
interested and get themselves licensed so they can experiment more, are left
out.

2) I'm an Internet Engineering researcher at a University. I have recently
been playing with enhancing TCP for use on AX.25 packet links. I'm not able
to use amateur radio if I'm being paid for it so would have to perform these
experiments in a bit of private spectrum. I would not be able to modify and
use software that is restricted to "amateur radio use only" as I'm working
in private spectrum, and again, this doesn't fit the legal definition of
amateur radio. I would have to duplicate the work, then perform the
experiments, and I wouldn't be able to contribute the code back directly. I
would then have to put on my amateur radio hat and write the code again for
it to be useful to the non-free software.

It was mentioned that JNOS is restricted to using IP addresses from the 44/8
network. It's also worth mentioning that in the UK, the TCP/IP packet
networks I've seen on VHF use RFC1918 addresses. To enable quick
experimentation, this is far easier than going through the AMPRnet portal
and waiting for a co-ordinator to allocate you a subnet to use. I would see
this as a bug, not a feature.

So, sadly, for now, JNOS will not be entering Debian. If you are looking for
node software, Dave MM3ZRZ is currently working on packaging UROnode and
this will be available in the repositories after the release of jessie. We
will be looking to remove ax25-node from the repositories after this, which
would free up the "node" name also allowing it to be used by nodejs if they
want it. (They currently rename the interpreter to nodejs from node which
has caused me, and I'm guessing others, some not easy to spot problems with
scripts).

Thanks,
Iain.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Iain R. Learmonth-2
Hi Hans,

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 03:11:44PM -0700, Hans-Peter Friedhelm Oeste wrote:
>    While I agree that you can make decisions as to the direction of
>    Debian, I believe that you're pushing your decisions into the region of
>    fanatical/puritanical  obsession.   That's all well and good as there's
>    always choice in supporting this distribution or not.

I'm sorry you feel this way. The decisions taking place are being considered
in the context of the Debian Social Contact. JNOS *cannot* be included in
Debian in its current state. If our users would find it useful, it would be
possible to build a jnos-installer package that would download and perform
an installation of JNOS. This topic is open for discussion, and input is
welcome from anyone. I must say that so far however, most input I've
recieved has not been constructive and there is not much I can do to act on
it.

>    BUT in reading your last paragraph where you suggest that because
>    because ax25-node is being dropped by you, Debian, it is now alright
>    for nodejs to hijack/appropiate this name, 'node' is entirely past
>    anything I can tolerate.  It seems to me that you are speaking far to
>    sweepingly for the Linux Community in general and you're actually
>    looking to reintroduce the 'bug' that originally existed.  Debian it's
>    self required, nay forced the name change originally even though node
>    had been used by ax25 far longer than the js folks.

Dropping ax25-node is being considered for the following reasons:

 * There is currently no active maintainer for ax25-node
 * The last update to this package by the team was in 2009 and that was the
   maintainer resigning.
 * The last actual maintainence update was in 2008.
 * There is an important bug on this package (#777013)
 * There is a normal bug on this package (#399464)
 * There are 2 lintian errors on this package, along with 20 warnings
 * Build log checks report 1 error and 1 warning about this package
 * The updates made to comply with the tech-ctte decision (#614907) had to be
   made by NMU
 * This package is no longer maintained upstream
 * A bug was filed indicating this package would be removed (#778843) and no
   objections have been put forward on this bug
 * The package depends on update-inetd which currently has no maintainer
   (#719794)

These bugs have been filed in our public bug tracker and anyone is welcome to
comment on them. If the above problems can be fixed, then there is no longer
any need to drop the package. Given it has no upstream maintainer at this time
however, it is likely it will have to be removed futher down the line anyway
due to incompatible changes in other parts of the system. Discussion regarding
the release of the "node" name would take place on debian-devel before being
implemented. Consensus would have to be reached before any such change could
happen. Nothing is decided yet and if there is anything being overlooked,
constructive input on the debian-hams list or on bug reports is the best way to
highlight the problems.

Thanks,
Iain.

--
e: [hidden email]            w: iain.learmonth.me
x: [hidden email]     t: EPVPN 2105
c: 2M0STB                  g: IO87we
p: 1F72 607C 5FF2 CCD5 3F01 600D 56FF 9EA4 E984 6C49

attachment0 (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JNOS in Debian

Patrick Ouellette
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:30:10PM +0000, Iain R. Learmonth wrote:

> >    BUT in reading your last paragraph where you suggest that because
> >    for nodejs to hijack/appropiate this name, 'node' is entirely past
> >    because ax25-node is being dropped by you, Debian, it is now alright
> >    anything I can tolerate.  It seems to me that you are speaking far to
> >    sweepingly for the Linux Community in general and you're actually
> >    looking to reintroduce the 'bug' that originally existed.  Debian it's
> >    self required, nay forced the name change originally even though node
> >    had been used by ax25 far longer than the js folks.
>
> Dropping ax25-node is being considered for the following reasons:
>
>  * There is currently no active maintainer for ax25-node
>  * The last update to this package by the team was in 2009 and that was the
>    maintainer resigning.
>  * The last actual maintainence update was in 2008.
>  * There is an important bug on this package (#777013)
>  * There is a normal bug on this package (#399464)
>  * There are 2 lintian errors on this package, along with 20 warnings
>  * Build log checks report 1 error and 1 warning about this package
>  * The updates made to comply with the tech-ctte decision (#614907) had to be
>    made by NMU
>  * This package is no longer maintained upstream
>  * A bug was filed indicating this package would be removed (#778843) and no
>    objections have been put forward on this bug
>  * The package depends on update-inetd which currently has no maintainer
>    (#719794)
>
> These bugs have been filed in our public bug tracker and anyone is welcome to
> comment on them. If the above problems can be fixed, then there is no longer
> any need to drop the package. Given it has no upstream maintainer at this time
> however, it is likely it will have to be removed futher down the line anyway
> due to incompatible changes in other parts of the system. Discussion regarding
> the release of the "node" name would take place on debian-devel before being
> implemented. Consensus would have to be reached before any such change could
> happen. Nothing is decided yet and if there is anything being overlooked,
> constructive input on the debian-hams list or on bug reports is the best way to
> highlight the problems.
>

I do not believe dropping ax25-node would necessarily allow another package
to use the generic name "node" - the technical committee ruled and set the
names for what is now ax25-node and nodejs.  During the discussion one point
everyone pretty much agreed on was "node" was way too generic of a name for
a binary or package.

As for your list of problems with the ax25-node package, it is not necessary.
Just like any other package someone has to have time, desire, and skill to fix
the bugs or the package should eventually be removed.  I would note that a
package that has only 1 outstanding actual bug (and one that is a wishlist to
replace it with UROnode #778843, which should not be a bug against ax25-node
but a WNPP bug entry filed by the author or UROnode), is really doing pretty
well all things considered.  None of the bugs you list are of a severity that
mandates dropping ax25-node.  It has maintainers listed who are not MIA, and
just might find some time to do some work on the package.

Lintian errors and warnings are most likely result of policy changes
over time.

Lack of upstream or other changes can mean the package does what it was
designed to do well enough.  Stability in a package is not necessarily
a bad thing. (Stagnation can be a different issue)

There is nothing that says ax25-node and UROnode can not both exist in Debian.

73,

Pat NE4PO
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
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=ij+6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150324192025.GA7025@...