Debian User Forums

Hi, I'm a little confused and I hope someone could clarify things for me. I downloaded an iso image of Debian 9.2.1 from here https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/cu ... 64/bt-dvd/ (I got there following links from https://www.debian.org/ so I think this is an official Debian distributive) created bootable USB and installed OS. I used only the first DVD in the set. After that I went to Sofware app to see what packages were installed. Browsing through the applications I was very surprised to see a program with "proprietary" value in license field (see attached screenshot). I was under the impression that debian distribution shouldn't include non-free packages and I didn't install this package either so where does it come from? Did it got in the distro by mistake?

Update: As I was writing this I digged a little bit further into it and turns out that the piece of software under question is actually licensed with BSD license which is kinda free but not completely free (as in freedom) because it doesn't require source code to be included with distribution. So I guess this makes this program proprietary (at least from Free Software Foundation point of view), BUT on Debian web site https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines BSD license is listed as free, therefore it's strange and inconsistent to call a software distributed under the same license "free" in one place but show it as "proprietary" in the list of programms after installation.
Or can BSD-licensed programs be free AND proprietary depending on particular conditions? Like if source code is provided it will be considered free and if not - then it's considered proprietary by Debian. Is this the case here? Thanks.

Edit: For some reason I can't attach the screenshot - forums says Internal Server Error

Edit: Here's the package I'm talking about https://alioth.debian.org/projects/reportbug/

The program I use to browse installed applications (which says that this application is not-free) is GNOME Software.

Three things:

1] This topic is in the wrong section - it should be in Beginners questions or General questions.
2] Can you please give the name of the program you refer to?
3] Your screenshot it not attached. Can you link to it?

I was very surprised to see "a program" with "proprietary" value in license field (see attached screenshot).

Gee, thats nice, is there some reason you can not just type the name of the program ?
========== edit ========
You don't really need a screen shot for this, but any way:
Attachments, How to post a screen shot and use code boxes
============ edited again========

(which says that this application is not-free)

"this application", and "that one" as well, wow,... Why can't you
just use the key board, and type the name of the application ?

GarryRicketson wrote:

I was very surprised to see "a program" with "proprietary" value in license field (see attached screenshot).

Gee, thats nice, is there some reason you can not just type the name of the program ?
========== edit ========
You don't really need a screen shot for this, but any way:
Attachments, How to post a screen shot and use code boxes
============ edited again========

(which says that this application is not-free)

"this application", and "that one" as well, wow,... Why can't you
just use the key board, and type the name of the application ?

it's called "Reportbug"

https://wiki.debian.org/reportbug


https://packages.debian.org/stretch/reportbug

I don't see anything that indicates it is proprietary.
=========== edited =========
There is nothing in that extremely over sized screen shot that indicates
or says it is proprietary either.
PLEASE learn how to use and make a thumbnail:
Please learn to thumbnail images
Thank you
P.S. This is what the huge image looks like on my end , it does not even fit on the screen:

GarryRicketson wrote:There is nothing in that extremely over sized screen shot that indicates
or says it is proprietary either.

Not even the large red "proprietary" box in the bottom right-hand corner?

EDIT: hilariously enough, looking at the above image, Garry has put me on his ignore list. This is amusing for three reasons.

1] He will not be able to see this post of mine which points to the fallacy in his previous reply.
2] He will not be able to read this very line, which tells him that he is obscuring the Big Red Proprietary Box with a terminal.
3] Garry is a spam hunter. Therefore, by putting forum members on his ignore list, he is unable to see any spam they may be contributing. If I decided to go postal - which I shan't - and started making multiple posts on sausages and sauerkraut instead of Linux OSs, he would be unable to do his job by flagging or removing them. I therefore argue that putting users on an ignore list, as a spam-hunter, is rather counter-intuitive.

GarryRicketson wrote: There is nothing in that extremely over sized screen shot that indicates
or says it is proprietary either.

Well, I don't know what to say, man. Sometimes moving other windows that overlap window you want to see helps.

Sometimes moving other windows that overlap window you want to see helps.

Tried that :




Hmm, Ok, well I see it now, Could Gnome possibly be wrong ?
I don't know what to say either.
Fixed it, here is a thumbnail :

=========== edited ====
Both of these:
https://wiki.debian.org/reportbug
https://packages.debian.org/stretch/reportbug
Do not say anything about it being proprietary , and usually they do say so
if something is proprietary licensed.
For example:
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/nvid ... 4xx-driver
You will see it says "Non Free" in big red letters,..

----therefore it's strange and inconsistent to call a software distributed under the same license "free" in one place but show it as "proprietary" in the list of programms after installation.

Agreed, it is strange and inconsistent, but starting a couple of years ago, I have noticed Gnome has a tendency to do some really strange and inconsistent things.

You can download the source code and give me a reason how it isn't. Maybe its a bug?

http://http.debian.net/debian/pool/main ... .7.tar.bz2

It is licensed under the BSD license.
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/reportbug/

Ok, based on the answers in this thread I think it's probably a bug in GNOME Software app. I'll try to report it using this Reportbug package .

For %$^*'s sake, reportbug is a native Debian application, written by Debian developers. Of course it has a DFSG-compliant license. No doubt GNOME software itself is stupidly misidentifying "native" as proprietary.

No doubt GNOME software itself is stupidly misidentifying "native" as proprietary.

Nah, Gnome would never do that , would it ?

Lysander wrote:Garry is a spam hunter. Therefore, by putting forum members on his ignore list, he is unable to see any spam they may be contributing. If I decided to go postal - which I shan't - and started making multiple posts on sausages and sauerkraut instead of Linux OSs, he would be unable to do his job by flagging or removing them. I therefore argue that putting users on an ignore list, as a spam-hunter, is rather counter-intuitive.

Garry is not the only spam hunter and I would welcome the chance to be actually useful here — I only ever get the table scraps with the G man around, he is so quick at locking down spam it makes my head spin

Also, I've got my eye on you Lysander

Besides that lot's of members report the spam posts, or quote the posts and I still see what nonsense is posted.

>>> If I decided to go postal - which I shan't - and started making multiple posts on sausages and sauerkraut instead of Linux OSs, he would be unable to do his job by flagging or removing them.

Go ahead and try it, see how many you get posted before you get banned.

GarryRicketson wrote:

Sometimes moving other windows that overlap window you want to see helps.

Tried that :

Hmm, Ok, well I see it now, Could Gnome possibly be wrong ?
I don't know what to say either.
Fixed it, here is a thumbnail :

Nobody needed to tell me the terminal I opened AFTER , looking at the oversized image, was blocking the part where it says "propriety", it did not show before I opened the terminal either, as you can see when I moved the terminal window,...where does it say "proprietary " ?

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:Also, I've got my eye on you Lysander

Good thing too!

GarryRicketson wrote:Go ahead and try it, see how many you get posted before you get banned.

I already said I shan't. To do so would be in neither of our interests.

GarryRicketson wrote: Nobody needed to tell me the terminal I opened AFTER , looking at the oversized image, was blocking the part where it says "propriety", it did not show before I opened the terminal either, as you can see when I moved the terminal window,...where does it say "proprietary " ?

Depends how big your screen res is, Garry. From what I can deduce you're working on quite a small screen. I can't do a SS from here of my own monitor, but it looks like, due to the size of your screen, the right hand part of the image was cut off, omitting the red 'proprietary' box.