Missing license

Hi all,
I have tried to download and install the midnight-commander package from
tucows.com. But if the package manager tries to install the software I
get the error message
“missing license file for package (mqx-1.0-public)”
What’s wrong? The is no license file???

Hi Andre,
I’m looking at tucows.com (http://qnx.tucows.com/file_management.html). I can not see midnight
commander, only MQC and PhHotKey. Where is mc? I wish to look at that package :wink:
I guess the license problem still alive since qnx 6.1 release. Manifest files (.qpm) of many
packages include reference to license.txt file (or something else), this file is missing. I solved
this problem by editting .qpm (remove those references :wink:) Is this situation in your case?
Regards,
Eduard.

Andre Koppel <akoppel@akso.de> wrote in article <9n9pgm$qsd$1@inn.qnx.com>…

Hi all,
I have tried to download and install the midnight-commander package from
tucows.com. But if the package manager tries to install the software I
get the error message
“missing license file for package (mqx-1.0-public)”
What’s wrong? The is no license file???

You are right, I have made the mistake. MQC is not MC :frowning:
But I have tried to install tar ball of a RTP binary from mc and this
can’t be done. First problem tar was unable to unpack the archive
because the directories tar likes to copy the files in are not really
existent (they are staying only within the package filesystem, and
writing into the package filesystem is not allowed (not implemented).
Second problem is a missing library (currently I do not remember the
name).
Because of this I have tried to install MQC, but … MQC is not MC (I
have seen, MQC is shipped with the RTP itself).
Any suggestions?

Message by ed1k <ed1k@yahoo.com> on: 07.09.01 07:22:13

Hi Andre,
I’m looking at tucows.com (> http://qnx.tucows.com/file_management.html> ). I can not see midnight
commander, only MQC and PhHotKey. Where is mc? I wish to look at that package > :wink:
I guess the license problem still alive since qnx 6.1 release. Manifest files (.qpm) of many
packages include reference to license.txt file (or something else), this file is missing. I solved
this problem by editting .qpm (remove those references > :wink:> ) Is this situation in your case?
Regards,
Eduard.

Andre Koppel <> akoppel@akso.de> > wrote in article <9n9pgm$qsd$> 1@inn.qnx.com> >…
Hi all,
I have tried to download and install the midnight-commander package from
tucows.com. But if the package manager tries to install the software I
get the error message
“missing license file for package (mqx-1.0-public)”
What’s wrong? The is no license file???

Andre,
I’m currently using mc from ftp://ftp.qnx.org.ru/pub/repository/mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr
I’ve installed this program under qnx 6.0 A by pkg-installer without any problems. And it still
works for me under qnx 6.1 GA (upgrade package). Unfortunately that port does not support panel
toggle ;-( (Ctrl-O does not work).
Regards,
Eduard.

Please be so kind and tell me the steps to remove the license reference.
I have downloaded the actual pckage, but I get the same message as
before, the public license is missing :frowning:

Message by ed1k <ed1k@yahoo.com> on: 07.09.01 10:30:34

Andre,
I’m currently using mc from > ftp://ftp.qnx.org.ru/pub/repository/mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr
I’ve installed this program under qnx 6.0 A by pkg-installer without any problems. And it still
works for me under qnx 6.1 GA (upgrade package). Unfortunately that port does not support panel
toggle ;-( (Ctrl-O does not work).
Regards,
Eduard.

Hi Andre,

  1. put package into temporary directory.
    #cp ./mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr /temp/mc.qpr
    #cd /temp

  2. untar&unzip package.
    #tar -xzf mc.qpr

  3. look through .qpm files, find and remove the lines:
    QPM:LicenseUrlrep://license.txt</QPM:LicenseUrl>
    Or put license.txt file into temp directory.

  4. launch Package Manager, click Add Repository and enter path: /temp/

  5. install package.

  6. delete the files from temp directory.

Good luck!

Andre Koppel <akoppel@akso.de> wrote in article <9nbt9n$7t4$1@inn.qnx.com>…

Please be so kind and tell me the steps to remove the license reference.
I have downloaded the actual pckage, but I get the same message as
before, the public license is missing > :frowning:

“ed1k” <ed1k@yahoo.com> writes:

Hi Andre,

  1. put package into temporary directory.
    #cp ./mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr /temp/mc.qpr
    #cd /temp

  2. untar&unzip package.
    #tar -xzf mc.qpr

  3. look through .qpm files, find and remove the lines:
    QPM:LicenseUrl>rep://license.txt</QPM:LicenseUrl
    Or put license.txt file into temp directory.

  4. launch Package Manager, click Add Repository and enter path: /temp/

  5. install package.

  6. delete the files from temp directory.

What you are suggesting is itself a breach of most license agreements,
and if you do it to a piece of commercial software is usually
considered by the manufacturere to be worthy of a response. Even if
it’s GNU software, the FSF is pretty clear on their opinions of
somebody bypassing their license. The real way to do this is:

  • Do not copy the .qpg files. They don’t contain all of the
    information (license is the most common). Instead, copy the .qpr
    file.

  • Do not install the .qpr file by creating a local repository.
    Instead, use “pkg-installer -u PACKAGE.qpr”

The .qpr file has 100% of the package information, so you do not risk
a bad install, and you do not bypass the license agreement, which
after all is there for a reason.

If there is no .qpr file available, complain to the manufacturer or
porter of the package.

Cheers,
Andrew


Andrew Thomas, President, Cogent Real-Time Systems Inc.
2430 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite 105, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 6S2
Email: andrew@cogent.ca WWW: http://www.cogent.ca

Andrew Thomas <andrew@cogent.ca> wrote in article <x7n1432lok.fsf@cogent.ca>…
[snip]

What you are suggesting is itself a breach of most license agreements,
I agreed, but I can not see a problem to read carefully GPL. I have read that one many times.



and if you do it to a piece of commercial software is usually
considered by the manufacturere to be worthy of a response. Even if
it’s GNU software, the FSF is pretty clear on their opinions of
somebody bypassing their license. The real way to do this is:

  • Do not copy the .qpg files. They don’t contain all of the
    information (license is the most common). Instead, copy the .qpr
    file.
    I’m sorry, what is .qpg files? That package

(ftp://ftp.qnx.org.ru/pub/repository/mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr) does not include license information.
It is a bug of the package and I suggest work around. BTW this package (without license
information) is istalled without any problems under QNX RTP 6.0. Is it normal?

  • Do not install the .qpr file by creating a local repository.
    Instead, use “pkg-installer -u PACKAGE.qpr”

I can not agree that. Where is crime in this case?



The .qpr file has 100% of the package information, so you do not risk
a bad install, and you do not bypass the license agreement, which
after all is there for a reason.
I agree, the .qpr file must have 100% of the package information.



If there is no .qpr file available, complain to the manufacturer or
porter of the package.
It’s a good idea. The most of software at ftp.qnx.com/usr/free and qnxstart.com is in .tgz form > :frowning:

Anyway,
YOU ARE RIGHT!

Regards,
Eduard.

Cheers,
Andrew


Andrew Thomas, President, Cogent Real-Time Systems Inc.
2430 Meadowpine Boulevard, Suite 105, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5N 6S2
Email: > andrew@cogent.ca > WWW: > http://www.cogent.ca

  • Do not copy the .qpg files. They don’t contain all of the
    information (license is the most common). Instead, copy the .qpr
    file.
    I’m sorry, what is .qpg files? That package
    (> ftp://ftp.qnx.org.ru/pub/repository/mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr> ) does not
    include license information.
    It is a bug of the package and I suggest work around. BTW this package
    (without license
    information) is istalled without any problems under QNX RTP 6.0. Is it
    normal?

The .qpr file is a collection of .qpg, .qpm and support files, all bundled
into a
single archive. It’s intended to be the non-repository way to distribute a
QNX6
package. I missed in your earlier posting that you were already working
with
a .qpr.

The 6.0 version of the package installer did not fail when it could not find
the
license. That was a bug, and it is fixed under 6.1.

  • Do not install the .qpr file by creating a local repository.
    Instead, use “pkg-installer -u PACKAGE.qpr”

I can not agree that. Where is crime in this case?

In this case, since you know that it’s GPL, and you know where to get the
text of
the license, and you agree to the terms, no crime in this case.

I was referring to the more general case of suggesting that people simply
chop
out the license agreement from the package manifest in order to install
without
viewing and agreeing to the license. In some cases (with some packages), it
would be a crime.

It’s a good idea. The most of software at ftp.qnx.com/usr/free and
qnxstart.com is in .tgz form > :frowning:

Sadly, yes. The packager is getting much better over time, but it is still
a lot
of work to set up a package, where tar and gzip are pretty easy and well
known. That will change.

Cheers,
Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Andrew Thomas <andrew.nospam@cogent.ca> wrote in article <9noip5$5vb$1@inn.qnx.com>…

[x]
The .qpr file is a collection of .qpg, .qpm and support files, all bundled
into a single archive.

Perhaps it is a typo. No .qpg file, but .qpr file is tarred and gzipped .qpk and .qpm files.

[x]
I was referring to the more general case of suggesting that people simply
chop out the license agreement from the package manifest in order to install
without viewing and agreeing to the license. In some cases (with some packages), it would be a
crime.

I agree. IMHO it’s amoral to chop out the license in order to install without viewing and agreeing

to the license. But if some bugs constrain to bypass viewing the license during install I can not
see other way then to view the license separately and to make some (maybe hacker’s) trick. My fault
was I’ve forgotten to point GNU General Public License version 2 (June 1991) must be read at first.
I’m sure if anybody wish to install Midnight Commander then he knows the program, he was using the
program before and he knows the license agreements. You only said this: do not use Midnight
Commander because there is no a quality package for QNX RTP. I’m very glad if anybody use my
software. It means I spent my time, but I did not waste the time. I’m very grateful to Miguel de
Icaza, Janne Kukonlehto, Radek Doulik, Fred Leeflang, Dugan Porter, Jakub Jelinek, Ching Hui,
Andrej Borsenkow, Norbert Warmuth, Mauricio Plaza, Paul Sheer, Pavel Machek and others…

Regards,
Eduard.

Andrew Thomas a écrit :

  • Do not copy the .qpg files. They don’t contain all of the
    information (license is the most common). Instead, copy the .qpr
    file.
    I’m sorry, what is .qpg files? That package
    (> ftp://ftp.qnx.org.ru/pub/repository/mc-4.5.51-x86-gnu.qpr> ) does not
    include license information.
    It is a bug of the package and I suggest work around. BTW this package
    (without license
    information) is istalled without any problems under QNX RTP 6.0. Is it
    normal?

The .qpr file is a collection of .qpg, .qpm and support files, all bundled
into a
single archive. It’s intended to be the non-repository way to distribute a
QNX6
package. I missed in your earlier posting that you were already working
with
a .qpr.

The 6.0 version of the package installer did not fail when it could not find
the
license. That was a bug, and it is fixed under 6.1.

  • Do not install the .qpr file by creating a local repository.
    Instead, use “pkg-installer -u PACKAGE.qpr”

I can not agree that. Where is crime in this case?

In this case, since you know that it’s GPL, and you know where to get the
text of
the license, and you agree to the terms, no crime in this case.

I was referring to the more general case of suggesting that people simply
chop
out the license agreement from the package manifest in order to install
without
viewing and agreeing to the license. In some cases (with some packages), it
would be a crime.

It’s a good idea. The most of software at ftp.qnx.com/usr/free and
qnxstart.com is in .tgz form > :frowning:

Sadly, yes. The packager is getting much better over time, but it is still
a lot
of work to set up a package, where tar and gzip are pretty easy and well
known. That will change.

Cheers,
Andrew

It seems that there is another problem with pkg-installer about these licences.
When we download a .qpr file, if pkg-installer is setted to archive the download
package, it save these as .qpm and .qpk files. If we use the qpr file, there is
no problem with the licence, id we use the qpm/qpk files, the licence is
missing!

Regards,
Alain