[02:59] <lagunalorre> i finally made the patches to snes9x source code so that it will compile on ubuntu jammy gcc-v11...and i made a deb file for installing or removing it...but apparently i can't distribute it because of a non-free license that the snes9x group wants even though their code is of no use without the patches
[03:00] <arraybolt3[m]> lagunalorre: What's the license? Is there a link to the text?
[03:01] <arraybolt3[m]> In any event, sadly we can't help with licensing issues of that sort. Whoever writes the code is the one who decides what is and isn't OK to do with it (in many respects at least). If they want to prohibit redistribution, that's their option. Maybe it was a bad choice on their part, but it's still their choice, and if we want to stay legal, we'll listen or not use their software.
[03:02] <arraybolt3[m]> What I can do is look over the license to see if it really says that, but keep in mind I am not a lawyer so my opinion on what the license does and doesn't allow is only my opinion (though I will try to give the best opinion I can).
[03:04] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3...here is a link about the license from the team at snes9x.com https://www.snes9x.com/journal.asp
[03:04] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 it doesn't say much except that they say no one is allowed to sell snes9x for any money
[03:05] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 they did not include any written licensing material in the source code
[03:07] <arraybolt3[m]> lagunalorre: I found the license in the source.
[03:07] <arraybolt3[m]> It's in a file simply called LICENSE.
[03:07] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 this is the latest code i could find on the internet and there seems to be a license issue posted with the new people working on it at github here
[03:07] <lagunalorre> https://github.com/snes9xgit/snes9x
[03:08] <arraybolt3[m]> Looking at it, it *might* (and this is a very big might) be ok in Multiverse, but I *highly doubt* it, due to the "no commercial use" clause.
[03:08] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 but the new people don't have the right to change what the older workers wanted
[03:08] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 yes they definitely don't want to help people sell it for money
[03:09] <arraybolt3[m]> True. Unless all of the copyright holders relicense their code, or all of the code under the restrictive license is replaced, new people cannot change the license (as I understand it).
[03:10] <arraybolt3[m]> It looks like you're clear to redistribute it yourself if you want to, as it says "Permission to use, copy, modify and/or distribute Snes9x in both binary and source form, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted without fee, providing that this license information and copyright notice appear with all copies and any derived work." But due to the clause about non-commercial purposes, I don't think even Ubuntu's Multiverse will
[03:10] <arraybolt3[m]> accept it.
[03:11] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 yes i agree...but there seems to be an effort to establish a different license for v 1.61 only at this url     https://github.com/snes9xgit/snes9x/blob/master/LICENSE
[03:11] <arraybolt3[m]> That looks like the exact license I got from a tarball of Snes9x downloaded from an official mirror.
[03:12] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 well it only applies at best to version 1.61...i fixed version 1.60...which has no license with the source and only the webpage that desires that no one sell it for money
[03:13] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 by the team that originally got it working long ago
[03:14] <arraybolt3[m]> lagunalorre: Where's the 1.60 version?
[03:14] <arraybolt3[m]> The 1.60 tarball I downloaded looks like it has the same license. There's a file in the folder. You may need to look a bit closer.
[03:18] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 yes i see it ..it looks similar to that for 1.61..the most recent person on the list from 2011 to 2017 says that it cannot be used for commercial purposes...and it appears that all of them listed want to maintain their copyrights to the code
[03:19] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3..since you got the 1.60 tarball do you want 2 files that i patched to go with it so it will compile on your ubuntu
[03:20] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3..but at least one person desires that it not be used commercially
[03:20] <arraybolt3[m]> I don't play any SNES games or homebrews, so I'm not sure I'll have a need for it, but if you'd like me to make a best effort at keeping a backup for you, I'll accept the patch and store it somewhere.
[03:21] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 ...ok well my contributions are free to anyone
[03:22] <arraybolt3[m]> lagunalorre: You might consider forking the SNES GitHub repo, adding your patch, and then submitting a pull request - that would allow everyone who uses SNES to have your contributions added.
[03:22] <arraybolt3[m]> (I think we're far off-topic for this channel at this point, so it may be better to move to direct messages.)
[03:23] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 i don't know how to direct message..i will go into ubuntu-offtopic to discuss a way to get you the 2 small files
[03:23] <arraybolt3[m]> I'm not in that room.
[03:23] <arraybolt3[m]> Just do "/query arraybolt3[m]" in your IRC client.
[03:23] <lagunalorre> arraybolt3 ok i am in ubuntu-offtopic now
[03:24] <arraybolt3[m]> Well alright.
=== guiverc2 is now known as guiverc
=== Eickmeyer is now known as NotEickmeyer
=== pizzaiolo is now known as pizza
[19:13] <arraybolt3> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-advantage-tools/+bug/1992026 Might just be my opinion but I think we need to fix this one ASAP, especially since it should be an easy fix.
[19:13] -ubottu:#ubuntu-devel- Launchpad bug 1992026 in ubuntu-advantage-tools (Ubuntu) "Ubuntu Pro APT integration is a bit much" [Undecided, New]
[19:15] <arraybolt3> I'll see if I can get a patch made for it.
[19:28] <jbicha> arraybolt3: I believe Canonical tends to take care of an issue like that
[19:28] <Odd_Bloke> I'd also really like to see ubuntu-advantage-tools removed from ubuntu-minimal's Depends: it's _not_ required for a minimal Ubuntu system (because you don't have to pay Canonical for a minimal Ubuntu system), and as it's just a marketing channel/tool for a product I'm not interested in, I would like to remove it.
[19:29] <arraybolt3[m]> jbicha: Hmm, that's a good point. ...well here's hoping they don't make a bunch of users angry.
[19:30] <jbicha> Odd_Bloke: it's not just a marketing tool. And that's already been debated. Allowing people to easily opt in to Ubuntu Pro is a core feature of Ubuntu.
[19:30] <Odd_Bloke> jbicha: I didn't say it was _just_ a marketing tool.  Moving it to a Recommends would keep it in image builds etc., but still allow users to remove it after launch.
[19:31] <Odd_Bloke> s/launch/instance launch or install/
[19:31] <jbicha> arraybolt3[m]: basically it needs the package owners to agree on the bugfix and for this particular package, that's Canonical people
[19:32] <arraybolt3[m]> jbicha: I just think that there's better places to put the notice. I mean, we have the Livepatch screen immediately after installing Ubuntu, wouldn't that be a great place to put it? And we've had MOTD doing similar things since forever.
[19:32] <jbicha> Odd_Bloke: I think that was last discussed at https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2022-June/042115.html
[19:32] <arraybolt3[m]> jbicha: And they probably already know well what they did and how to turn it off if it should be turned off, so my help is probably unnecessary here.
[19:34] <arraybolt3[m]> (I kind of get why it would be put in apt - it's a really cool feature that may help a lot of people, so showing it to people makes sense. But on every upgrade? Surely there's somewhere else we can tell them about this so they don't feel like we're being pushy. Then again, we've been pushy about plenty else (the theme color of Ubuntu, Snaps, how Ubuntu's GNOME should look, etc.) and it's went over quite well despite some upset
[19:34] <arraybolt3[m]> folks, so /shrug)
[19:34] <arraybolt3[m]> Anyway, I've gone off-topic - this would be much better in #ubuntu-discuss, so I'll be happy to pick back up if anyone wants to meet there.
[19:35] <arraybolt3[m]> (tl;dr: I think it should be removed, but remembering other things, I won't be upset it if stays.)
[19:41] <Odd_Bloke> As a point of reference, snapd is a Recommends of ubuntu-{desktop,server}: it's important to the default experience that it's available, but it can still be removed by users who don't want unused packages/messaging/files/disk space on their system.  u-a-t seems like it falls into that same category: if you aren't going to use snaps you can remove snapd, if you aren't going to use UA you can remove
[19:41] <Odd_Bloke> u-a-t.
[19:46] <Odd_Bloke> And this will also drive users to workarounds: using equivs to build an epoch'd ubuntu-advantage-tools package, for example (or, even worse, an epoch'd ubuntu-minimal package).  Systems in such configurations will be much further away from enabling UA than one where u-a-t has simply been `apt-get remove`d.
=== justHaunted is now known as _justHaunted
=== _justHaunted is now known as justHaunted