[SOLVED] IEs4Linux

[CJ]

To my big surprise, this project seems to be alive after all this time.
(I remember checking it out some years back and it had all but died out, with the developer saying that he had no time to maintain it - seems that time is again a commodity in presence.)

http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/

Before actually making a package request, let me just float the question here - is there any reason why we could not include it? As far as I can see, it is open source and free as in beer.

Yes, I know, why bother - but sadly, I need to test my web development in IE too.

Any thoughts?

Cheers!
CJ

[Neal ManBear]

IE is proprietary.

[CJ]

True - as are many things run in wine...
... and this is just an easy - and apparently working way of getting it installed under wine.
(IEs4Linux actually used to be in the repos many moons ago.)


Not that I wouldn't agree with your implied sentiment (actually, I wish IE would just disappear, alas)...

Cheers!
CJ

[Neal ManBear]

I didn't imply anything. I said it clearly.

[CJ]

I didn't imply anything. I said it clearly.

IE is propriety. My question was if there were reasons why IEs4Linux could not be included in the repos. Since we have other propriety stuff in there (winetricks with IE6, videodrivers; and earlier inclusion of this package some years back), the implication seems to be that there is a different sentiment regarding what I ask, that I do not have the knowledge to appreciate...   

Truly not being argumentative here, but when a person of your stature on here speaks, I try to sit up and listen... I do want to get it right, though!

Cheers!
CJ

[Neal ManBear]

IE would need different handling than an open source app. The question comes down to, 'can we redistribute it?' If the license doesn't allow for unlicensed redistribution, it's a no go.

[MerReady]

IE would need different handling than an open source app. The question comes down to, 'can we redistribute it?' If the license doesn't allow for unlicensed redistribution, it's a no go.

This is from there FAQ:  http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Legal_notices

IEs4Linux is free software, open source, covered by the GPL. But IE is proprietary, copyrighted, and you have to accept their license.

Note that to install any MS program included on IEs4Linux, you need a valid Windows license. IEs4Linux will not ask for it and you can run everything without any problem even if you don't have a license. But it is illegal and a I have nothing to do with this.

And you should accept the Adobe Flash EULA too.
More detailed answer

MS IE license says:

NOTE:  IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS
95, MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT WORKSTATION 4.0, MICROSOFT
WINDOWS NT SERVER 4.0, MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER, ENTERPRISE EDITION 4.0 OR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS NT SERVER 4.0, TERMINAL SERVER EDITION), YOU ARE NOT
AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY, OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE
NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

That is: you must have a valid OS license (any Windows version greater than 95). But this EULA does not say that you have to install on Windows. So, you need a valid Windows license, but you can install on Linux.

IEs4Linux can't know if you own this Windows license or not. This software is provided only to people that own this license. If you use IEs4Linux without owning a Windows license, it may be illegal to use IEs4Linux in your country.

The way I read this, IEs4Linux is no different than PlayOnLinux. PlayOnLinux ask if you have a valid windows licence and it is in the repos so I don't see why IEs4Linux could not be there also.

[Neal ManBear]

There's the sticking point. If we distribute this, we could be encouraging illegal activity. That is, anyone who installs it and does not have a valid license is breaking the law, and we, by extension, are participating in the illegal activity.

We do not encourage breaking the law, nor do we wish to break the law.

[MerReady]

Sorry Neal I was modding my post while you made yours, so i'm repeating myself. Anyway PlayOnLinux asks for the same thing and it is in the repos. If we then have to kill that then we would have to kill wine also because someone could install IE using wine and have to agree to the same license. And if "We do not encourage breaking the law, nor do we wish to break the law" then we will have to kill all bittorrent programs and even Virtual Box to make sure PCLinuxOS doesn't participate in illegal activity.

The point I'm trying to make is that IEs4Linux in of itself in not illegal and its up to the user if they are using it legally. They are the one's that have to agree to the license. Not PCLinuxOS. Honestly its better protection than what you get from bittorrent.

[travisN000]

Looking at the website, it doesn't look like it really "needs" to be packaged.. If a user needs it and it is legal for them to use, they can just install the dependencies via synaptic or apt (wine & cabextract), download & unpack the ie4slinux tarball, then run it as regular user...

Removal is not much different:

There is no uninstall option because it is simple: just remove the files.  Usually you have to remove:
~/.ies4linux folder
Executables at ~/bin
Desktop shortcuts

If you configured different folders, just remove them.

 

[Neal ManBear]

MerReady,
Did I misunderstand? You asked for opinions? I gave mine.

[kjpetrie]

It doesn't need to be packaged because it runs in userspace under wine. However, the legality is very dubious, because the need for a Windows licence is not the end of the story. IE is a Windows component (MS renamed it about a year ago to make that clearer), and even if you do have a Windows licence it states the product is a whole and components may not be separated off for use under other systems, so is a Windows licence you are breaking, and which doesn't apply to the system on which you plan to install IE, still a "valid Windows license"?

If you have a valid Windows licence, install it in VirtualBox where IE will run much better. IEs4Linux is a curiosity, but of limited value.

[MerReady]

MerReady,
Did I misunderstand? You asked for opinions? I gave mine.

No misunderstanding that I can see. You gave your opinion. I gave mine. If my opposing opinion has somehow rubbed you the wrong way then I am sorry. 

[zerocool]

Not that I wouldn't agree with your implied sentiment (actually, I wish IE would just disappear, alas)...

I didn't imply anything. I said it clearly.

[Neal ManBear]

MerReady,
Did I misunderstand? You asked for opinions? I gave mine.

No misunderstanding that I can see. You gave your opinion. I gave mine. If my opposing opinion has somehow rubbed you the wrong way then I am sorry. 

  Huh? No. I was just checking to be sure.