Freedom Issue #3063
[cowsay]: blacklist entry
0%
Description
this blacklist entry had no bug reference; and it is not obvious why it was blacklisted
the blacklist description is given as:
[nonfree] website of the source code is unavaiable"indeed, that is true; but it is not a valid blacklist reason - obviously, the source code is available (it was moved to github) - the entry passes the lint-check, only because the [nonfree] tag is valid (which i believe is erroneous, and the given description does not support that tag)
the only difference between extra/cowsay and libre/cowsay, is that the parabola package uses debian as the upstream source, which is incomplete (it has deleted some files as offensive[SIC], which debian packages as 'cowsay-off')
i dont see any reason to re-package it, because:
- none of the files were removed for the given [nonfree] reason
- the extra/cowsay and libre/cowsay package and PKGBUILD are otherwise identical
- it is not a useful program, merely a gag, so it could just as well be blacklisted without a replacement
WRT licensing, it entered the blacklist in a batch, along with several other PERL-dependent packages, with this changelog message note:
add multiple perl packages to blacklistNote on "Perl 5 License": Some packages, use "Perl 5 License" (dual license -
"GPL" (v1+) and nonfree "PerlArtistic" (Artistic 1.0) license),
the "PerlArtistic" license are ignored.the PerlArtistic 1.0 license is considered to be non-free; but the PERL5 license is a disjunctive dual license, permitting it to be taken under the GPL; so this does not appear to be a valid blacklist reason either
History
Updated by bill-auger about 1 year ago
looking into this more, there is no reason to use debian as the upstream - indeed, the original upstream is abandoned, as is it's website; but the original author uploaded the code-base to github (read-only), as a parting gift - that frozen repo is the source for the arch package - apparently, debian is not aware of that, though it happened about 7 years ago - debian appears to believe that the source code is not available anywhere else; and probably that is why the parabola devs used debian as the upstream
there is also a fork which aims to continue maintenance; and it is the only fork with a website
WRT licensing, when the original author uploaded the code-base to github, he also removed the PERL license and changed it to a single license 'GPLv3-only' - that final release was logged in the change-log as v3.04 (another indication that debian is unaware of it) - that is why the arch package is a version ahead of parabola
i recently added an animation feature; but am not sure where to publish it - that's why i especially wanted to get to the bottom of this finally - the new fork has new cows and has made several releases of it's own; so i offered my changes to that upstream - if it is accepted, i will probably need to re-work my patches; because the diff is substantial; but then the parabola package would have a healthy upstream - if my feature is not accepted, it makes most sense to use the same upstream as arch
alternatively, we could simply ignore my new feature - in which case, i dont see why this package needs to be replaced at all, other than the offensive[sic] and vaguely copyright-infringing cows (such as beavis and darth vader) - though debian did not remove beavis, darth vader, or the other dubious "fan art" anyways - parabola has been distributing those all along, though parabola has most often deleted such dubious things, whenever they are noticed
so what i did? - i changed the PKGBUILD to the frozen github upstream (same as arch), and simply deleted those dubious files in a mksource() (it deletes more than debian does now), and patched in my new feature