dcp385c-cupswrapper: init at 1.1.2 #367380
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
6.topic: lib
marcin-serwin
force-pushed
the
brother-dcp385c-drivers
branch
from
47f1bcf to
4048560
Compare
marcin-serwin
changed the title
marcin-serwin
changed the title
marcin-serwin
force-pushed
the
brother-dcp385c-drivers
branch
2 times, most recently
from
37819cb to
5c4bc9e
Compare
marcin-serwin
force-pushed
the
brother-dcp385c-drivers
branch
from
5c4bc9e to
d1abe89
Compare
|
|
||
| meta = { | ||
| homepage = "https://git.sr.ht/~marcin-serwin/brprintconf"; | ||
| description = "Decompiled source of brprintconf_dcp385c"; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure about having this in Nixpkgs — decompiled proprietary software is pretty legally dubious.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The EULA explicitly grants us the right to "modify, alter, translate or otherwise prepare derivative works of the Software and to reproduce and distribute [...] derivative works for any purpose." IANAL but I think decompilation should be covered by this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, that's very interesting, and not at all what I want expecting from a EULA, although the presence of the GPL below might explain some things.
In that case, what was it about the EULA that you identified as non-free?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The drivers distributed under the EULA typically do not have their source code available and it states that the license should not "be construed as Brother's implied agreement or undertakings to disclose and/or distribute the source code of the Software."
Moreover there is no mention whether the user may sell the software, which is usually present in similar licenses, though perhaps "distribute" covers this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The drivers distributed under the EULA typically do not have their source code available and it states that the license should not "be construed as Brother's implied agreement or undertakings to disclose and/or distribute the source code of the Software."
That's true, but is sort of orthogonal to license. I can license a binary under the MIT license without providing source code, and while that makes my software non-free, it doesn't make the MIT license a non-free license.
Moreover there is no mention whether the user may sell the software, which is usually present in similar licenses, though perhaps "distribute" covers this.
Hmm yeah, I'm not sure. Would be good to get another opinion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's true, but is sort of orthogonal to license. I can license a binary under the MIT license without providing source code, and while that makes my software non-free, it doesn't make the MIT license a non-free license.
Yeah, I noticed that but, as I understand it, the nixpkgs ecosystem doesn't have a way to express the "freeness"/source availability of a given package irrespective of its license. The dcp385c-lpr is definitely non-free software but if we change the EULA to be a free license it will be marked as free.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It can additionally be marked with lib.licenses.unfree.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, but that just seems like a workaround to me since there are no unfree licenses present in the package. This would also be needed by nearly every package using this license since its purpose is to distribute proprietary software.
Personally, I'd rather leave it as unfree regardless of the unclear commercial rights. It's not approved by FSF or OSI and it will likely never be. We can add a comment near it which summarizes this conversation. If someone needs to override this then it's always possible to do brotherEula // { free = true; } and this will be less work than adding lib.licenses.unfree everywhere else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm really not sure. I'd like to hear more opinions on what to do here.
ofborg
bot
added
8.has: package (new)
Add Brother DCP385c drivers from https://support.brother.com/g/b/producttop.aspx?c=us_ot&lang=en&prod=dcp385c_all
Things done
nix.conf? (See Nix manual)sandbox = relaxedsandbox = truenix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage./result/bin/)Add a 👍 reaction to pull requests you find important.