Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:23:57 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:05:00PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Good point, but where does it claim so? In the footer of every page. My quote: Copyright © 1997-2011 SPI and others; See license terms can be found in the footer of every page. Ah, I hadn't noticed that... The already cited license page [3] currently says: | Copyright © 1997-2011 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. | P.O. Box 501248 | Indianapolis, IN 46250-6248 | United States [3] http://www.debian.org/license You've just spotted a bug :-) ;-) The change has been applied to the footer of every page, but not to the /license page itself. I've just propagated the change to that page as well. Good, thanks for taking action! -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp94jPL3HmMr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet unknown terms. I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them. I didn't intend to make *absolute* statements. I acknowledge that I should have written what *some* people opposing, but unfortunately that some failed to come out of my keyboard... Sorry about that. Anyway, I am under the impression that the number of those some people is significant. [...] I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a for-profit entity. Exactly. And, since I have been repeatedly disappointed by non-profit organizations too, I personally strongly dislike copyright assignment to *any* entity, not just to for-profit ones. [...] I understand that not all DFSG-free licenses are equal in terms of how they represent moral beliefs of people (e.g. I'm myself more of a copyleft kind of guy than a *BSD kind of guy). But it is the largest horizon of software freedom beliefs we should expect from people who have contributed to the *Debian* website. As I said, some people may dislike giving blanket permission to re-license under yet unknown terms, since they may think that some licenses officially accepted by the Debian Project are in fact non-free. You know at least some examples, hence there's no need to explicitly list them... Strategically, it seems to me that either we stick to that set of licenses, or we have to pick a single license upfront. As I said, I think a single license (or, anyway, a very small number of possible licenses, from which the contributor may choose one) should be picked upfront. [...] Moreover, any DFSG-free license is quite vague. Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not? The Debian project has an official position on which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. I believe you know that very well. Yes, and not everybody agrees with that official position, as you know. We will all appreciate if you could avoid hijacking this discussion to push agendas that object the current stance of the Debian project on which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. Those discussions do not belong to this (already crowded) bug log. I agree, and that is exactly the reason why I avoided making any specific example: I didn't want to drive the discussion far away from the important point we are talking about. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpB7ygdk3lX9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Debian official web site is still non-free
Hello! I see there's (at last) some activity on bug #388141 [1]. I am happy to see that, but I personally think it's going in a slightly wrong direction... :-( First of all, a brief summary of bug #238245 [2] and of bug #388141 [1] (which started as a clone of #238245 [2]), for debian-legal readers. Anyone who is interested in all the details is invited to (re-)read the complete (long) bug logs. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/388141 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/238245 The issue is two-fold: firstly, the official Debian web site is licensed [3] under the terms of the OPL [4] and therefore fails to comply with the DFSG. Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's not [5]. [3] http://www.debian.org/license [4] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#40 [5] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#58 End of summary. Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206), include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future and (then) past contributors. I think this is the wrong approach. The Debian Project does *not* ask for copyright transfers for anything, AFAICT. Not even for the packaging. Why should a contributor trust SPI to always take the Right™ licensing decisions in the future for his/her contributions? Moreover, copyright assignment is much more difficult from a legal standpoint, may require dead-tree paperwork and may be problematic for some contributors. I acknowledge that the current plan includes the possibility of exceptions for those not willing to assign their copyright, but, then, why asking at all? A way of handling these cases must be devised anyway. That way is asking for re-licensing consent. Let's do so for everybody! I personally think the appropriate plan to address the issue is therefore doing the following actions (all of them, in the specified order!): (A) Decide a set of licenses for the Debian web site. A default for GNU GPL v2, with the Expat/MIT being allowed (for any contributor who wants to use a more permissive license) seems to be the most reasonable proposal [6] [6] http://bugs.debian.org/388141#199 (B) Track down all contributors to the web site, contact them and ask them to agree to the re-licensing of their past contributions (under the GNU GPL v2 or, if they so wish, under the Expat/MIT). Please note that MJ Ray [7] and Bradley M. Kuhn [8] have offered help with this: I hope they are still willing to get involved... [7] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#138 [8] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#197 (C) Change the copyright notice for the web pages, to read Copyright (c) 1997-present by Debian WWW authors and so that it says the license is GNU GPL v2, except where noted that the license is Expat The proposed wml tags may be used to keep track of copyright holders of the various web pages (D) Future contributions will be accepted only if licensed under terms compatible with one of the allowed licenses I hope this plan makes sense to you, and may help in finally solving this issue. Thanks a lot for your time and for taking care of this bug. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpltyzCSki78.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 21:50:17 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's not [5]. As a side point: the above claim of yours is no longer true, see #632175. The web site now claims Copyright © 1997-2011 SPI and others. Good point, but where does it claim so? The already cited license page [3] currently says: | Copyright © 1997-2011 Software in the Public Interest, Inc. | P.O. Box 501248 | Indianapolis, IN 46250-6248 | United States [3] http://www.debian.org/license I fail to see others in both the rendered HTML page and the HTML code. Hence, I am a bit puzzled... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgplv0AFEz79Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 07:38:24PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206),
include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future
and (then) past contributors.
I think this is the wrong approach.
The Debian Project does *not* ask for copyright transfers for anything,
AFAICT. Not even for the packaging.
Why should a contributor trust SPI to always take the Right™ licensing
decisions in the future for his/her contributions?
Let me followup on the specific point of copyright assignment, which I
definitely glossed over in my first follow-up to David's plan.
digression
I'm generally concerned with copyright assignments and I'll never sign
one myself for a piece of software to a for profit organization.
In this specific case, and as an author of some of the context on
www.debian.org website, I'll be much less concerned. Partly because it
is not software and of scarce interest outside the Debian context. But
more importantly because the assignment will be done to a non-profit
organization (SPI), that have transparent rules and elected bodies, and
that have Free Software principles at the heart of the organization.
/digression
Nevertheless --- and as already exemplified by several follow-ups to
David's proposal --- we are surely going to encounter more resistence to
copyright assignment requests than what we would encounter to re-license
requests. Let's see if we can avoid that.
(A) Decide a set of licenses for the Debian web site.
A default for GNU GPL v2, with the Expat/MIT being allowed
(for any contributor who wants to use a more permissive license)
seems to be the most reasonable proposal [6]
(B) Track down all contributors to the web site, contact them and ask
them to agree to the re-licensing of their past contributions
(under the GNU GPL v2 or, if they so wish, under the Expat/MIT).
David has mentioned two points in favor of copyright assignment over
re-licensing: (1) what if we need to do it again? and (2) separation
of concerns (i.e. first we get the right to re-license, and only then we
pick a license). I find both arguments quite convincing.
A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right
to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket
permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will
see fit, now and in the future.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader ... @zack on identi.ca ... o o o « the
first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 22:15:03 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: [...] A possible way out, that I'm hereby suggesting, is to ask for the right to re-license (instead of copyright assignment), but to ask a blanket permission to re-license under any DFSG-free license the -www team will see fit, now and in the future. I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet unknown terms. At least, I would *not* want to give blanket permissions to re-license. Not even to a non-profit organization. I have been disappointed by too many organizations, including non-profit ones (please don't get me started with listing specific examples, or I'll go on for days!). Moreover, any DFSG-free license is quite vague. Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not? It is well-known (at least among debian-legal regulars) that not everybody agrees with each other on the DFSG-freeness of a work. Countless examples could be made. Hence, having a promise to re-license under a DFSG-free license won't be enough to reassure people who have their own strong opinions on software freedom issues. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpFvkKbohoZq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
unknown terms.
I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people
opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them.
I, for one thing, generally oppose copyright assignments, but as this
discussion has made clear I've a different position than yours. Others
will have yet more different views, for sure.
I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting
copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions
get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about
software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a
for-profit entity.
Restricting the camp to DFSG-free licenses gives already quite some
guarantees about what the license terms could be. For instance, they
won't be terms that forbid the content to be distributed as part of the
Debian archive. In other words, they won't be terms that put the content
at stake with Debian philosophy.
I understand that not all DFSG-free licenses are equal in terms of how
they represent moral beliefs of people (e.g. I'm myself more of a
copyleft kind of guy than a *BSD kind of guy). But it is the largest
horizon of software freedom beliefs we should expect from people who
have contributed to the *Debian* website. Strategically, it seems to me
that either we stick to that set of licenses, or we have to pick a
single license upfront. As mentioned by David and in my previous mail,
that would defeat the separation of concern goal.
Moreover, any DFSG-free license is quite vague.
Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not?
The Debian project has an official position on which licenses are
DFSG-free and which are not. I believe you know that very well.
We will all appreciate if you could avoid hijacking this discussion to
push agendas that object the current stance of the Debian project on
which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. Those discussions do not
belong to this (already crowded) bug log.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences .. http://upsilon.cc/zack .. . . o
Debian Project Leader... @zack on identi.ca ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
Le Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 11:17:02PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a for-profit entity. Hi Stefano, in my understanding, there is still a big difference between copyright assignment and re-licensing, even if we trust the license to be free. - In the case of assignment, the author has to comply with the license chosen by SPI. - In the case of re-licensing, the author can still use his work under the license he prefers. Imagine for example that I write for the Debian Med project's pages a short explanation of what ‘biological sequence alignment’ means. In that case, I would like to keep the option to re-use my work freely. However, if the website were copylefted, and if I would transfer my copyright, this would restrict my possibilities to re-use my own work. For that reason, I think that copyright assignment and choice of license can not be separated. Which is another good reason to go for relicensing or copyright disclaiming instead. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120109013219.ga18...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Debian official web site is still non-free
On Sun, 08 Jan 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them. I personally don't really see the need for copyright assignments, unless we foresee the need to enforce the copyright. Instead, a properly written maximally permissive grant (with the ability to sublicence) to SPI or some other appropriate body in addition to licensing the work under the currently understood set of licenses. Or, if we decide that we won't ever need to relicense, we can just continue on with proper licensing terms. Don Armstrong -- Where I sleep at night, is this important compared to what I read during the day? What do you think defines me? Where I slept or what I did all day? -- Thomas Van Orden of Van Orden v. Perry http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120108223738.gs26...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
