5 ms·

Well, there is a difference. Those are FOSS packages being rebuilt and redistributed under the terms that they were licensed under. AFAIK, Fiddler is not FOSS.

by jsight 9y ago

akerl_ 9y ago
The comment I'm responding to called out "What's the bet that Chocolately obtained prior permission from Telerik, Mozilla, Google or any other of the software vendors to redistribute their packages?" I'm of the opinion that Telerik has the right to license their software as they see fit, including making it not available for packaging in Chocolatey, and legal precedent makes it much more dubious whether or not the existence of an accessible URL makes it legally OK for Chocolatey to package it than I think most people here are acknowledging. That said, the commenter I replied to also called out Mozilla, and as far as I'm aware, the software of theirs that folks package is FOSS
- dsp1234 9y ago
  makes it legally OK for Chocolatey to package it than I think most people here are acknowledging. Chocolately never distributed Fiddler packages. This is just a basic misunderstanding of how Chocolately works.
  - akerl_ 9y ago
    I feel like this is the first half of a comment. If you believe I misunderstand how Chocolatey works, the interesting bit isn't telling me I'm mistaken, it's correcting my mistake by pointing out that Chocolatey doesn't actually copy and redistribute the package, it provides users with scripting sufficient that their local machine downloads the package from the origin service. But in practice, I'm aware of how Chocolatey works, and figured I could get away with pointing out that the US legal system has previously considered access of remote systems to be a crime even in cases of publicly exposed endpoints without having to do a longwinded explanation of the role of Chocolatey vs the end user running Chocolatey's provided scripts.
dsp1234 9y ago
Ok, what do you feel about older Broadcom drivers for Linux? Those drivers are not open source, and did not allow for distribution. So Linux distributions included scripts to download from the public sources (provided by Broadcom), and run the install. The only software "distributed" by the OS provider, was a simple download script (probably less than a couple dozen lines). If you are Ok with that, then note that that is what Chocolately does. I linked to the actual source code of the Chocolately package in another comment if you want to see what it does.
- jsight 9y ago
  I think that my distribution (Fedora) doesn't do that with the Broadcom drivers, at least in the official distribution. I don't really think that is a great practice for an official distribution.

Well, there is a difference. Those are FOSS packages being rebuilt and redistributed under the terms that they were licensed under. AFAIK, Fiddler is not FOSS.

by jsight 9y ago

Well, there is a difference. Those are FOSS packages being rebuilt and redistributed under the terms that they were licensed under. AFAIK, Fiddler is not FOSS.

akerl_ 9y ago

The comment I'm responding to called out "What's the bet that Chocolately obtained prior permission from Telerik, Mozilla, Google or any other of the software vendors to redistribute their packages?" I'm of the opinion that Telerik has the right to license their software as they see fit, including making it not available for packaging in Chocolatey, and legal precedent makes it much more dubious whether or not the existence of an accessible URL makes it legally OK for Chocolatey to package it than I think most people here are acknowledging. That said, the commenter I replied to also called out Mozilla, and as far as I'm aware, the software of theirs that folks package is FOSS

dsp1234 9y ago
makes it legally OK for Chocolatey to package it than I think most people here are acknowledging. Chocolately never distributed Fiddler packages. This is just a basic misunderstanding of how Chocolately works.
- akerl_ 9y ago
  I feel like this is the first half of a comment. If you believe I misunderstand how Chocolatey works, the interesting bit isn't telling me I'm mistaken, it's correcting my mistake by pointing out that Chocolatey doesn't actually copy and redistribute the package, it provides users with scripting sufficient that their local machine downloads the package from the origin service. But in practice, I'm aware of how Chocolatey works, and figured I could get away with pointing out that the US legal system has previously considered access of remote systems to be a crime even in cases of publicly exposed endpoints without having to do a longwinded explanation of the role of Chocolatey vs the end user running Chocolatey's provided scripts.

dsp1234 9y ago

Ok, what do you feel about older Broadcom drivers for Linux? Those drivers are not open source, and did not allow for distribution. So Linux distributions included scripts to download from the public sources (provided by Broadcom), and run the install. The only software "distributed" by the OS provider, was a simple download script (probably less than a couple dozen lines). If you are Ok with that, then note that that is what Chocolately does. I linked to the actual source code of the Chocolately package in another comment if you want to see what it does.

jsight 9y ago
I think that my distribution (Fedora) doesn't do that with the Broadcom drivers, at least in the official distribution. I don't really think that is a great practice for an official distribution.