Somebody removed dcom95.exe from sf.net. Was there a reason for that? We really need to keep that file mirrored. It's an essential file for many programs to run under wine. I've re-added the file as a hidden file for the moment. It won't show up in the download list, but we can still link to it.
Jeremy Newman wrote:
Somebody removed dcom95.exe from sf.net. Was there a reason for that? There is a very precise reason for that, according to the sf rules you must provide the source code of all binaries hosted there, and all files must comply to the open source definition. I think that ignoring this rule would be an abuse of sf resources, and disrespectful to other projects. I can host the file elsewhere if you think we must have a mirror for it.
Ivan.
On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 03:43 +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Jeremy Newman wrote:
Somebody removed dcom95.exe from sf.net. Was there a reason for that? There is a very precise reason for that, according to the sf rules you must provide the source code of all binaries hosted there, and all files must comply to the open source definition. I think that ignoring this rule would be an abuse of sf resources, and disrespectful to other projects. I can host the file elsewhere if you think we must have a mirror for it.
Ivan.
IIRC such rules only apply to files released under the download section, not stuff put in the webspace. Thanks, Scott Ritchie
I've re-added the file as a hidden file for the moment. It won't show up in the download list, but we can still link to it.
If you need to link to it it's here http://spazioinwind.libero.it/nonsolomicrosoft/dcom95.exe Ivan.
No, we need reliable US and international mirrors. Don't remove the file again please. Thanks. On Tue, 2005-01-04 at 04:13 +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
I've re-added the file as a hidden file for the moment. It won't show up in the download list, but we can still link to it.
If you need to link to it it's here http://spazioinwind.libero.it/nonsolomicrosoft/dcom95.exe
Ivan.
-- Jeremy Newman <jnewman(a)codeweavers.com> CodeWeavers, Inc.
Jeremy Newman wrote:
No, we need reliable US and international mirrors. Don't remove the file again please.
<quote> Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license </quite> We are violating the sourceforge.net rules, I don't believe this is acceptable, and sf could even close down the project pages for this It is unlikely they will, but we are violating their TOS and this isn't a nice thing to do. Ivan.
Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Jeremy Newman wrote:
No, we need reliable US and international mirrors. Don't remove the file again please.
<quote> Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license </quite>
We are violating the sourceforge.net rules, I don't believe this is acceptable, and sf could even close down the project pages for this It is unlikely they will, but we are violating their TOS and this isn't a nice thing to do.
Ivan.
So why not ask them for explicit permission, and take it down only if they say no? Also, they are hosting the "corefonts" project, which is 100% files of the same type license as dcom95, so I find it hard to believe they will say no. Shachar -- Shachar Shemesh Lingnu Open Source Consulting ltd. http://www.lingnu.com/
So why not ask them for explicit permission, and take it down only if they say no?
Request submitted http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1095530&group_id=1&... Ivan.
Jeremy, we got this reply from the sourceforge staff, please remove the file. Message: Logged In: YES user_id=597273 Greetings, Only software licensed under an Open Source license may be hosted on SourceForge.net resources. As such, no, it may not. Thank you, David Burley Second Level Support Technician, SourceForge.net burley(a)sourceforge.net
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 15:21:10 +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Jeremy, we got this reply from the sourceforge staff, please remove the file.
Why don't you ask them why they're hosting the core fonts which are not open source licensed then? Actually don't bother, we don't want to cause the font guys hassle too. The policy is quite clearly there to stop proprietary software companies using the SF mirror network to distribute their own products, not to stop open source projects hosting downloads that will be useful to the Linux community. Really Ivan, you may be technically in the right here, but the fact is you should absolutely have discussed this on wine-devel first. That file is referenced by various third party scripts/howtos and such, I know this because I've written these things before. By taking this matter into your own hands and not discussing it first you went behind the backs of the community and broke a lot of code and documentation by doing so. My IE installer script is one example iirc, but I'm sure there are others. Your admin access on Sourceforge is so you can upload the Mandrake RPMs, it is *not* so you can interfere with decisions that were made a long time ago at will. Please remember that in future. thanks -mike
Hem, Mike I did ask about this on wine-devel and got no answers. I am *not* the sort of person that would take decisions like that one without discussing it first, but as nobody answered I thought nobody cared, it is not my intent to interfere with anything. I just don't think it's nice to violate the sf.net rules, and I beleive it's disrispectful to other projects. Closed source files can be useful to linux users, but thins is no excuse. If the wine community thinks this the sf TOS isn't important, fine, but I disassociate myself from such a decision. Ivan.
Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Hem, Mike I did ask about this on wine-devel and got no answers. I am *not* the sort of person that would take decisions like that one without discussing it first, but as nobody answered I thought nobody cared, it is not my intent to interfere with anything.
I was puzzled by this, because I shared Mike's concern that you unilaterally removed this file, and it seemed abrupt and unannounced to me as well. So I searched around, and I see that you brought this up in April, and then nicely followed through by submitting patches to change Wine to not point to SF, but instead to Microsoft. So, I guess that the only thing we could have asked is if you had posted a note saying something to the effect 'okay, guys, now that I cleaned up the code to not point to SF, I'm removing the file now...', which would have wacked us with the clue bat. And it's a bit tough to ask us to remember things 8 months out of context... But it is clear to me that you did try to do 'the right thing', and we jumped down your throat a bit too quickly. Sorry about that.
I just don't think it's nice to violate the sf.net rules, and I beleive it's disrispectful to other projects. Closed source files can be useful to linux users, but thins is no excuse. If the wine community thinks this the sf TOS isn't important, fine, but I disassociate myself from such a decision.
I think we all agree that we want to respect their wishes. Jer tells me it's deleted now; anyone still pointing to SF needs to update ASAP. Cheers, Jeremy
Jeremy White <jwhite(a)codeweavers.com> writes: [...]
Jer tells me it's deleted now; anyone still pointing to SF needs to update ASAP.
Sorry to jump in late, but maybe the problem could be mitigated somewhat by putting a redirect at the old location which would automatically send users and scripts to the new one. Surely SF doesn't have a policy against that... ----ScottG.
Hi, On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:21:10PM +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Jeremy, we got this reply from the sourceforge staff, please remove the file. Oh well, might be good to do that then...
I just provided (in case it's needed) http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/dcom95.exe http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/dcom95.exe.md5 (a copy of the nonsolomicrosoft/ file) which is on the rhlx01 server, MASSIVE bandwidth... Andreas Mohr
Oh well, might be good to do that then...
I just provided (in case it's needed) http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/dcom95.exe http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/dcom95.exe.md5 (a copy of the nonsolomicrosoft/ file) which is on the rhlx01 server, MASSIVE bandwidth...
Hello, I replaced the sdk redistributable installer with the actualy installer, as the licence allows redistribution of the installer for end users only. It also makes the installation easier. The file contains a Microsoft digital signature. The new url is http://spazioinwind.libero.it/nonsolomicrosoft/DCom95.Exe the md5sum is b5b69ccd1691fbc43e87a719c1546dcd Ivan.
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:44:44 +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Hello, I replaced the sdk redistributable installer with the actualy installer, as the licence allows redistribution of the installer for end users only. It also makes the installation easier.
Do you mean you changed SourceForge, or that the new file you posted is a different installer somehow? I'm confused ...
Hi, On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:44:44PM +0100, Ivan Leo Puoti wrote:
Hello, I replaced the sdk redistributable installer with the actualy installer, as the licence allows redistribution of the installer for end users only. It also makes the installation easier. The file contains a Microsoft digital signature. The new url is http://spazioinwind.libero.it/nonsolomicrosoft/DCom95.Exe the md5sum is b5b69ccd1691fbc43e87a719c1546dcd OK, replaced.
http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/DCom95.Exe http://lisas.de/~andi/wine_files/DCom95.Exe.md5 Andreas Mohr
participants (8)
-
Andreas Mohr -
Ivan Leo Puoti -
Jeremy Newman -
Jeremy White -
Mike Hearn -
Scott Ritchie -
Scott W Gifford -
Shachar Shemesh