arch package system

darthaxul · 2008-10-11 20:32:02

Why does arch linux support proprietary packages and is there a way to prevent a system from obtaining those packages?

SamC · 2008-10-11 21:03:52

Don't install them? (As far as I know, the default install is all free software. A dev would know better than I, though.)

Last edited by SamC (2008-10-11 21:18:46)

orasis · 2008-10-11 21:09:05

darthaxul wrote:

Why does arch linux support proprietary packages and is there a way to prevent a system from obtaining those packages?

Although this is by no means an official answer - I believe it's because Arch Linux is primarly aimed to be a bleeding edge desktop system which can be customized any way the user likes - free or non-free.

If you are concerned about your system being pure GPL, you can always install packages by hand ... your system may not be as bleeding edge but at least your conscience will be clean.

catwell · 2008-10-11 21:26:41

Not all Linux users are free software extremists. I prefer a working non-free driver than nothing, and that Arch allows me to do this easily is one of the main reasons I use it. The licenses are checked for the right to redistribute before packaging so there's nothing illegal in it.

z0phi3l · 2008-10-11 21:32:56

darthaxul wrote:

Why does arch linux support proprietary packages and is there a way to prevent a system from obtaining those packages?

I see nowhere in "The Arch Way" where it's mentioned that we are to dislike "non free" packages, the Arch way allows me to install ANYTHING I want to install

bender02 · 2008-10-11 22:09:14

darthaxul wrote:

... is there a way to prevent a system from obtaining those packages?

Yes. Read the license field of 'pacman -Si <package>' before you install. The system itself doesn't install anything. It's always you.

dsr · 2008-10-11 23:34:54

KISS distros tend to favor functionality over ideology. That's probably why Arch Linux isn't called Arch GNU/Linux and Slackware Linux isn't called Slackware GNU/Linux. Check out gNewSense if you want to go the total free software route. The FSF doesn't even consider Debian GNU/Linux free anymore.

neotuli · 2008-10-12 00:38:47

If you're passionate about such functionality, and want to work toward an implementation of such a system, I encourage you to subscribe to the pacman-dev mailing list and submit an implementation.

Gullible Jones · 2008-10-12 00:41:58

Debian should be considered free again, now that SGI has finally modified the Free Software License B to comply with FSF standards.

Re Arch: I believe unrar may be nonfree. AFAIK that's the only non-obvious one. No nonfree packages are part of the default install,but then the default install is very minimal.

Zerathidune · 2008-10-12 00:53:08

A thread like this crops up periodically. The idea of having some way for you to set up pacman to at least warn you before installing non free software (from what I have seen) certainly isn't something the devs would object to given that it was done properly, it just isn't a priority. It's not something most arch users care a lot about. As neotuli said, if someone who did care wanted to do the requisite work, they would be perfectly welcome to.

here is one relevant feature request:

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/6510

(the square brackets in the url are giving me some difficulty making that a link)
Edit: well then, don't post them - Allan

Last edited by Allan (2008-10-12 01:36:26)

rocknrolf77 · 2008-10-12 00:53:17

I'll rather have a working app/driver, but if I can choose a free alternative that's always the way I go. Arch policy when it comes to free/non free suits me very good.

darthaxul · 2008-10-12 06:35:37

Yeah I know a lot of people like proprietary software, look how good MS is doing. But what was ticking me off was I didnt realize it was on my system till I started checking it out more.

On the wiki check out "the arch way" and look under "open" and tell me if its thier priority to have open source software included in the base repo. If extra is part of the base I thinks thats inlcuded in the "base". I think arch goes out of its way to include proprietary packages into the "base" system because I just installed the "base" system and I never wanted proprietary software to be on system.

Allan · 2008-10-12 07:14:06

Yes, we prefer open source software, but not at the expense of having an inferior alternative. For some programs there is still no open source equal.

As pointed out, it is entirely your choice what you install on your system. During the initial install, you probably only installed the base set of packages, perhaps base-devel as well. I can not think of any proprietary software in that category. Every other installation is up to you. If you are that concerned about installing proprietary software, then do not install it. You could also help others not install it by adding the functionality to pacman to restrict installation based on license (as mentioned above). If you have no programming skills, create a wiki page with a list of all proprietary software in the Arch repos.

It all comes down to it being your system, so install what you want on it.

fukawi2 · 2008-10-12 07:30:09

darthaxul wrote:

If extra is part of the base I thinks thats inlcuded in the "base".

If I understand that correctly (you think 'extra' is part of 'base') then that's not correct.

darthaxul wrote:

I think arch goes out of its way to include proprietary packages into the "base" system

As stated several times above; no-one knows of any proprietary packages in 'base'. If you know of some examples, please share

bender02 · 2008-10-12 09:53:29

darthaxul wrote:

I think arch goes out of its way to include proprietary packages into the "base" system ...

What?

Stythys · 2008-10-12 10:05:36

[thread hijack]

damn you arch devs! I think they go out of their way to include all this open-source crap in our repos. I DEMAND AN ANSWER!

[/thread hijack]

Last edited by Stythys (2008-10-12 10:06:24)

Allan · 2008-10-12 13:30:21

About time for closing really... Question answered

Arch Linux

#1 2008-10-11 20:32:02

arch package system

#2 2008-10-11 21:03:52

Re: arch package system

#3 2008-10-11 21:09:05

Re: arch package system

#4 2008-10-11 21:26:41

Re: arch package system

#5 2008-10-11 21:32:56

Re: arch package system

#6 2008-10-11 22:09:14

Re: arch package system

#7 2008-10-11 23:34:54

Re: arch package system

#8 2008-10-12 00:38:47

Re: arch package system

#9 2008-10-12 00:41:58

Re: arch package system

#10 2008-10-12 00:53:08

Re: arch package system

#11 2008-10-12 00:53:17

Re: arch package system

#12 2008-10-12 06:35:37

Re: arch package system

#13 2008-10-12 07:14:06

Re: arch package system

#14 2008-10-12 07:30:09

Re: arch package system

#15 2008-10-12 09:53:29

Re: arch package system

#16 2008-10-12 10:05:36

Re: arch package system

#17 2008-10-12 13:30:21

Re: arch package system

Board footer