[Feature]: Separate nonfree packages into a distinct Termux repository

[davidhedlund]

Feature description

Description

The default Termux package repository (termux-main) currently includes some nonfree packages. For example, proot-distro maintains popular but nonfree GNU/Linux distributions. This mixing of free and nonfree software goes against the principle of repository separation and can create licensing and redistribution concerns.

Steps to Reproduce

1. Review the default repository configuration at $PREFIX/etc/apt/sources.list, which contains:
   deb https://mirrors.cbrx.io/apt/termux/termux-main stable main
2. Comment out the above line and run:
   apt update && apt show proot-distro
   The package proot-distro will no longer appear, confirming it resides in termux-main.

Expected Behavior

Nonfree packages should reside in a separate repository (e.g., termux-nonfree) to clearly distinguish between free and nonfree software.

Actual Behavior

termux-main currently includes both free and nonfree packages, such as proot-distro.

Proposed Solution

• Move nonfree packages (e.g., proot-distro) out of termux-main into a dedicated termux-nonfree repository.
• Update documentation and sources.list templates accordingly.

References

1. Verification: When the termux-main source line is commented out, apt show proot-distro fails, confirming its presence in that repository.

Additional information

@robertkirkman Please take a look at this.

[agnostic-apollo]

The proot-distro package hosted in termux-main repo channel itself does not contain nonfree files AFAIK. A user can choose to download and install a nonfree distro by their own choice, but its not automatically installed when installing proot-distro package supplied by us. A user could also download nonfree files when other packages are being installed and built on device, like dependencies installed via other package managers, like pip/npm/bundle, should that be disallowed too? Adding a nonfree label or warning users when installing nonfree distros would be a more ideal and easier way IMO, @sylirre should be able to do that.

[davidhedlund]

Adding a nonfree label or warning users when installing nonfree distros would be a more ideal and easier way IMO, @sylirre should be able to do that.

I submitted this issue in the proot-distro repo:

• [Feature]: Nonfree label or warning users when installing nonfree distros proot-distro#626

[davidhedlund]

The proot-distro package hosted in termux-main repo channel itself does not contain nonfree files AFAIK. A user can choose to download and install a nonfree distro by their own choice, but its not automatically installed when installing proot-distro package supplied by us. A user could also download nonfree files when other packages are being installed and built on device, like dependencies installed via other package managers, like pip/npm/bundle, should that be disallowed too?

Packages that depend on nonfree data, such as proot-distro, are typically not included in free repositories. For instance, many game packages are excluded from distributions because, even if their code is free, they rely on nonfree game data.

[TomJo2000]

We do not make a distinction between OpenSource packages depending on non-free data and fully libre packages and adding such a distinction would be dubious in both usefulness and enforcability.

If proot-distro should be classified as non-free because some distros offered through it offer non-free software, then should curl or wget be classed as non-free because it can be used to download proprietary files?
Should git be non-free because it can push to proprietary remotes?
What about the Gitlab CLI? What about the GitHub CLI?
I don't see any clear benefit or line to split that.

[robertkirkman]

since it might not be immediately obvious, this issue is related to a discussion about hypothetical future ease of intercompatibility of Termux with the Librephone project https://librephone.org/,

to determine how much upstream Termux code and infrastructure will be possible to share with the librephone project, and how much will be necessary for the librephone project to completely rewrite.

This issue is a request for upstream Termux to group non-free packages, using some criteria similar to the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which it should be noted are subtly different guidelines from each other, and of which Termux does not currently have its own well-defined equivalent) into a separate repository, to improve the overall software freedom of Termux users.

[davidhedlund]

since it might not be immediately obvious, this issue is related to a discussion about hypothetical future ease of intercompatibility of Termux with the Librephone project https://librephone.org/,

to determine how much upstream Termux code and infrastructure will be possible to share with the librephone project, and how much will be necessary for the librephone project to completely rewrite.

This issue is a request for upstream Termux to group non-free packages, using some criteria similar to the GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines or the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which it should be noted are subtly different guidelines from each other, and of which Termux does not currently have its own well-defined equivalent) into a separate repository, to improve the overall software freedom of Termux users.

Thank you for stepping in, Robert.

Note that Debian now includes nonfree software.

From https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Debian

Until 2022, Debian GNU/Linux did not offer nonfree packages for installation unless the user explicitly enabled use of that repository. Thus, it was easy to make a free installation if you wanted to.

That is no longer true, because Debian has changed its policy. In Debian 12, initially, the installer offered to install nonfree firmware whenever some hardware devices “needed” that.

GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines is designed to only allow free software and that will never be changed.

[robertkirkman]

If proot-distro should be classified as non-free because some distros offered through it offer non-free software, then should curl or wget be classed as non-free because it can be used to download proprietary files?
Should git be non-free because it can push to proprietary remotes?
What about the Gitlab CLI? What about the GitHub CLI?
I don't see any clear benefit or line to split that.

davidhedlund might be more eloquent in an explanation than me, and can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding/perspective is like this:

the command git clone https://github.com/pmachapman/unrar.git is a non-free program written by a user, it's the user's clear choice whether or not to themselves write and run this 1-line Bash program, which was not distributed with their distribution.

However, the command proot-distro install archlinux unfortunately makes it too straightforward for the user to run a pre-written, provided script that can autoinstall a repository into their device that makes it too simple to accidentally use pacman -S unrar after that.

The scripts have a pre-written chain of URLs in a certain codepath that can be taken which eventually leads to a non-free software, so this issue suggests a framework with which such codepaths can be simultaneously and efficiently removed, or disabled from the start, by software-freedom-conscious users.

[robertkirkman]

For another straightforward real-world example, that has more specific relevancy to Termux, of how the GNU FSDG and the Debian FSG appear to differ, I can see that while Debian considers the package python3-pip to be free software and provides it in its main repository, the FSF-approved distro Trisquel does not provide a python3-pip package, because it can be used to accidentally install non-free software.

[davidhedlund]

We do not make a distinction between OpenSource packages depending on non-free data and fully libre packages and adding such a distinction would be dubious in both usefulness and enforcability.

I submitted a dedicated issue for proot-distro describing how it can be made free:

• [Feature]: Split nonfree distribution templates into separate package proot-distro#627

[TomJo2000]

I wanna clarify that I'm not opposed to this proposal on the face of it, I'm worried about the amount of effort required to part out our existing 3 repos (main, x11, root), containing currently 2735 packages¹.

Aside from the huge amount of upfront work to split "Libre²" and "non-free³" packages this will also impose ongoing complications in evaluating new package contributions.

We're critically low on recurring contributors as is, and I do not have the time or bandwidth to manage such a proposal, if somebody wants to take this on in a way that I don't need to handle the initial implementation of this split myself that would alleviate a huge chunk of my concerns with this proposal.

Footnotes

1. https://repology.org/repository/termux ↩

2. Meaning open source and not depending on non-free data. ↩

3. Meaning fully non-free or partly dependent on non-free data. ↩

[davidhedlund]

We're critically low on recurring contributors as is, and I do not have the time or bandwidth to manage such a proposal, if somebody wants to take this on in a way that I don't need to handle the initial implementation of this split myself that would alleviate a huge chunk of my concerns with this proposal.

I completely understand the situation and appreciate your contribution. Having Trisquel included in proot-distro is really helpful and I'm very grateful for it!