Re: If we're Going to Have Alternate Init Systems, we need to Understand Apt Dependencies
On December 7, 2019 7:26:14 PM UTC, Dmitry Bogatov wrote: > >If we succeed at protecting init.d scripts, it will be feasible to >develop support for other init systems gradually, package after >package. > >Should we fail, introduction of new init system will require either >introduction of native support into ~1300 packages at same time or use >of systemd files as fallback, which means inheriting huge complexity. > >In other words, death of init.d scripts means end of all hope. There are definitely advantages to having each daemon ship its own startup scripts/control files, and that's how Debian has done it for as long as I can remember, but it seems like there is an alternative — have them provided by a different package. Probably one package providing quite a few of them. It'd need some way to only try to start installed daemons, but that sounds solvable. Advantage being that partial support (200 common daemons, not all 1300) would be possible. And it'd be independent (so anyone running systemd would just ignore its presence in the archive), and wouldn't need cooperation from the maintainers of the other packages. Wouldn't help with programs depending on e.g., systemd-logind, of course. But possibly there is hope for other init systems even if one of the systemd-all-the-way options wins.
Re: Withdrawing Proposal C; Option Ordering; CFV Timing
On November 30, 2019 10:32:11 PM UTC, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >I have removed the proposal from the page. I'm not sure that is the >best thing to do. I think it'd be a little clearer to replace its title and text with "(withdrawn)" or similar, then it'll be clear the missing letter is not a mistake like something accidentally missing. That's also a common way to deal with, e.g., repealed laws — replace the section with a note that it was repealed.
Re: Donations
Wouter Verhelst wrote: The point of the exercise is to avoid having so many organizations and so many bank accounts that we would need three professional accountants just to keep track. Perhaps I should have worded it as 'no more than one such organization shall be active per country'; [...] Or, we could just trust that the DPL, not being our enemy, won't do stupid things. We agree that in some cases (the EU, as you mentioned) one organization per country is excessive. In others, who knows, maybe there is a reason for two organizations per country? [Oh, and if we're going to put limits per-country in the constitution, who defines what a country is? Is Taiwan, for example?] Why not just trust the DPL to be reasonable? The language is them much simpler, too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG
Josselin Mouette wrote: Following the result to GR 2006-001, the following modifications will be made to the Debian Free Software Guidelines: Let's not make a bad situation worse. These two modifications would, I think, open a large enough hole in the DFSG to drive a MS EULA through. At the end of DFSG #2, the following text should be added: The license may restrict distribution to some kinds of media if it is still possible to distribute the source code and compiled code together on at least one machine-readable medium. Several other people have already pointed out how bad this is. Sure, you can distribute it — on punch cards. At the end of DFSG #6, the following text should be added: As a special exception, the license may forbid use of technical measures to restrict access or use of the software itself. This clause is at least as bad. Hey, I can now write a free software license which prohibits you from removing my spyware! The rm and kill commands are, of course, technical measures that would prevent my access to the software (the spyware). Same with changing the source code to remove the spyware. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Call for votes for the Debian Project Leader Election 2006
martin f krafft wrote: True. But I, for one, have my MUA set to honour M-F-T before R-T though. Doesn't 'r' use reply-to and 'L' use Mail-Followup-To? [headers indicate he's using Mutt] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Draft ballot for the GFDL vote
Manoj Srivastava wrote: [ ] Choice 2: GFDL licensed works are free unless unmodifiable sections present All GFDL works have unmodifiable sections, including at least: * [4D, 4E] Copyright statements * [4A, 4I] Parts of the section entitled History * [4F] The permission notice, which must be in the form shown in the Addendum below * [4H] A copy of the GFDL * [4J] Random URLs So, unfortunately, that phrasing won't work. (Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not saying that all of these are [or are not] DFSG-freeness issues, just that they're unmodifiable sections) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Craig Sanders wrote: don't be an idiot. you only have to keep the invariant sections if you are DISTRIBUTING a copy. you can do whatever you want with your own copy. Well, creating modified versions of a copyrighted work requires the permission of the copyright holder. In some countries this modification may count as fair use or equivelant. In countries where it doesn't, I quote the GFDL: In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: [...] L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document, unaltered in their text and in their titles Further, I have always considered having the right to help my neighbors an important part of free software. If I can't distribute my modified version to my neighbor, it's not free software. ps: according to your bogus argument, that also means any non US-ASCII/iso-8859-1 document is non-free simply because you can't use it on some common PDAs in the US. what an asinine assertion. That would be an asinine assertion. Good thing I never made it. If the license says that the document may not be translated to ASCII, that'd be non-free. That's what I said. Nothing more. or, similarly, that because YOU can't read Japanase (or some other non-english language) that foreign language documents are non-free. I am completely baffled as to how you come to this conclusion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Craig Sanders wrote: stop trying to pretend that convenience is a freedom issue. it isn't. [snip] it may be horribly inconvenient to not be able to usably install a foreign language document on an english-only device, but that is UTTERLY IRRELEVENT TO WHETHER THE DOCUMENT IS FREE OR NOT. I have a simple question for you: Is the following license free? Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the Software), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following condition: 1. That person first climbs a mountain at least 4,000 ft above mean sea level. Climbing a 4,000 foot mountain is certainly possible. Its just inconvenient [well, unless you do that kind of stuff for fun]. Personally, I do not find this license to be free, even though its just a convenience issue. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
Craig Sanders wrote: the DFSG also allows that the modification may be by patch only. No, it does not. Quoting DFSG 4, with emphasis added: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE BUILT FROM MODIFIED SOURCE CODE. I have looked, and I can find no provisions in the GFDL explicitly permitting distribution of software built from modified source code. In fact, when I look, the license explicitly requires invariant sections to be included in opaque copies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Craig Sanders wrote: if there is a particular process which can shoehorn the document into the limited device, then it's perfectly OK to distribute the document along with with instructions (whether human-executable instructions or a script/program) for doing so. i.e. this meets the requirements of the patch clause in the DFSG. No it does not, as the patch clause in DFSG 4 clearly states that the license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. Please either point to the provision in the GFDL that explicitly allows that, or stop claiming DFSG 4 is relevant. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Anton's amendment
Anton Zinoviev wrote: But if 'reasonable modification' means 'modification that is necessary in order to solve some particular need' then it is not obvious that the document is non-free as we can see from the examples given so far [*]. I'm wondering if you consider my example in [0], which considers modifying a document to work on a display device with limited charset (e.g., ASCII-only) support, to be a modification necessary to solve some particular need. In particular, after doing the work to convert the document to the right character set, I'm pretty sure that I am not able to give that modified version to my neighbor. [0] Anthony DeRobertis, A new practical problem with invariant sections?. Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00568.html Anton Zinoviev [*] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Curious Case Of The Mountainous Molehill
Craig Sanders wrote: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. THE LICENSE MUST EXPLICITLY PERMIT DISTRIBUTION OF SOFTWARE BUILT FROM MODIFIED SOURCE CODE. I have looked, and I can find no provisions in the GFDL explicitly permitting distribution of software built from modified source code. the GFDL is applied to documentation, not software. Its not hardware, its on a computer, therefor it is software. by your loony literalist interpretation, no documentation can possibly be free because you can't distribute software built from it. A lot of documentation has a build process. For example, you can create PDF from (La)TeX. If a LaTeX document had a clause along the lines of: ... You may not modify the LaTeX source of this document. However, you may distribute this document along with patches to be applied before building the document, and you may distribute the results of such builds. that would not preclude it from being a free license. (That is just an excerpt, and not written in the correct legalese either). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A new practical problem with invariant sections?
Anton Zinoviev wrote: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example you are welcome to share it with us. :-) I don't recall the following example being brought up. Let's assume a manual, written by in Japanese, with Japanese invariant sections. Someone translates this manual to English. The translator, of course, leaves the Japanese invariant section intact. Now, I'd like to download this (translated) manual and place it on a portable device I own, so I can easily read it without killing a bunch of trees. I think this is clearly a useful modification, and I think that I should be able to do this for a DFSG-free work. But, there is a problem: My portable device understands only ASCII, or maybe ISO-8859-1 if I'm lucky (at least in the US, this is pretty common). It doesn't understand UTF-8, Shift-JIS, etc. It is not technically possible to keep the Japanese invariant section. I believe this gives a notable, practicle reason why invariant sections are not free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about the GR
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 03:42:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: And what? If someone tries to bring through a GR stating that MS office warez can be distributed in main since it meets the DFSG, one might rule that as frivolous and a waste of time. I'm not convinced the constitution gives the secretary the power to make such a ruling. There are no provisions in the constitution for the Project Secretary to dismiss a GR -- *even* a GR stating that the Debian Project holds the value of pi to be 3 -- so long as the GR has the requisite number of seconds. I suspect the Secretary could effectively do so by declining to take the vote under Section 2.1.1 ([n]othing in this constitution imposes an obligation on anyone to do work for the Project.) It seems then that the secretary has no obligation to actually perform 4.2.3 or 7.1.1. In the present case, I understand that the proposed ballot option is ambiguous wrt whether it constitutes an implicit amendment to the foundation docs, and that in the absence of clarification (in the form of a re-worded proposal) on the part of the proposer, it is the project secretary's prerogative to specify a supermajority requirement. I think that under 7.1.3, it'd be the Secretary's job/power to determine supermajority requirement regardless of what the proposed ballot option says. If 6 developers (K=5 currently, I think) can decide that the supermajority requirements to not apply to a ballot option, then the supermajority requirements are rather worthless. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin wrote: Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that there was no inconsistency. If a simple majority can yell, there is no inconsistency then the 3:1 requirement has little meaning. I think it'd be reasonable to request that people who believe [0] is wrong should produce reasoned arguments against it; to the best of my knowledge (and memory, of course), no one has done so. Without a reasoned argument for why the GFDL w/o Invariant Sections is free, I don't see how the Secretary can consider the amendment anything else than an attempt to change a foundation document, and either rule it out of order or require the supermajority. [0] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote: Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also distributable without restriction (and more). If this was not the case, then the software should be removed from main. We don't guarantee that. We make our best effort, but make no guarantee. If we guaranteed that, and it turned out we made a mistake, missed a patent, etc., then we would be sued. Looking up the word: 1. Something that assures a particular outcome or condition: Lack of interest is a guarantee of failure. 2. 1. A promise or an assurance, especially one given in writing, that attests to the quality or durability of a product or service. 2. A pledge that something will be performed in a specified manner. 3. 1. A guaranty by which one person assumes responsibility for paying another's debts or fulfilling another's responsibilities. 2. A guaranty for the execution, completion, or existence of something. 4. A guarantor. I think 2.1 applies, and I think that would create substantial potential liability for Debian. PS: I'm on debian-vote, no need to cc me. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote: Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free on their CDs? DVDs are the most obvious answer. Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs pre-loaded with Debian. Even people who charge for access to internet archives need to look. Note that the point is that sometimes packages in non-free may *not* be included on CDs (it's happened before, I don't know if there are currently any) it's currently the case for a lot of packages in non-free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:06, Sven Luther wrote: Huh ? Isn't the DFSG such written that no restriction on further distribution it placed. By guarantying that all software in main is compliant with the DFSG, we thus guarantee that it is also distributable without restriction (and more). If this was not the case, then the software should be removed from main. We don't guarantee that. We make our best effort, but make no guarantee. If we guaranteed that, and it turned out we made a mistake, missed a patent, etc., then we would be sued. Looking up the word: 1. Something that assures a particular outcome or condition: Lack of interest is a guarantee of failure. 2. 1. A promise or an assurance, especially one given in writing, that attests to the quality or durability of a product or service. 2. A pledge that something will be performed in a specified manner. 3. 1. A guaranty by which one person assumes responsibility for paying another's debts or fulfilling another's responsibilities. 2. A guaranty for the execution, completion, or existence of something. 4. A guarantor. I think 2.1 applies, and I think that would create substantial potential liability for Debian. PS: I'm on debian-vote, no need to cc me.
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 23, 2004, at 22:43, Andrew Suffield wrote: Who else can you think of that should be encouraged to study the licenses and determine if they can distribute the packages in non-free on their CDs? DVDs are the most obvious answer. Another that comes to mind are people who distribute PCs pre-loaded with Debian. Even people who charge for access to internet archives need to look. Note that the point is that sometimes packages in non-free may *not* be included on CDs (it's happened before, I don't know if there are currently any) it's currently the case for a lot of packages in non-free.
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well.
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL?
Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial (again, with proper line breaks)
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold off until at least tomorrow. This comparison is based on Raul Miller's DRAFT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Suffield's GR, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph of Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free software | Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording difference. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| Debian exists to distribute a | general purpose system composed | of entirely free software. | Raul seems to define Debian's purpose explicitly here; Andrew leaves it (I assume) implicit. Andrew's we promise... sentence seems similar. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -- | As| We provide the guidelines that we use there are many definitions of| to determine if a work is free free software, we use the| in the document entitled The Debian Debian Free Software| Free Software Guidelines. Guidelines to determine if | software is free.| Raul keeps the original rationale for creating the DFSG. Andrew prefers to shorten it. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield | |We | promise that the Debian system and | all its components will be free | according to these guidelines. Andrew makes it very clear that Debian is free; both also state that the system will never depend on non-free items later on. Raul's explicit giving Debian purpose, above, probably serves many of the same goals as this sentence. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -- |--- We will also |We will support our users who develop| support people who create or use both and run other software on Debian | free and non-free works on Debian. -- free or non-free -- AFAICT, these say the same thing, just slightly differently. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield --|--- but we|We will never make the system | will never make the system require the depend on non-free software. | use of a non-free component. Again, the same thing. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -|- 2. We will give back to the free | 2. We will give back to the free software community | software community | When we write new components of the | When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them | Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the | in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We | Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so | will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely | that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will| distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug | communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user | fixes, improvements and user requests to the upstream authors | requests to the upstream authors of works included in our system. | of works included in our system. Word for word, these two are identical. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| 3. We will not hide problems | 3. We will not hide problems | We will keep our entire bug report | We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all | database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file | times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible | online will promptly become visible to others. | to others. Identical, again. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield - ---|- 4. Our priorities are our users and |
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote: Well, except for the ambiguity of what 100% free means without the word software. Free software is very specific, because of the DFSG. Yes, that's true. Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word internet (Raul: isn't Internet capitalized?). Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm using it as an adjective, not as a noun, not as a trademark, and not as part of a title. It's my impression that lower case is better here. I'm pretty sure proper nouns, when turned into adjectives, still are capitalized. Like the adjective German, for example. A quick check of the dictionary shows German, referring to Germany (not the familiar relation) is indeed capitalized. Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is only a noun. So, the most correct may be Internet-connected These are fairly different. Raul does not include the statement that these are not part of Debian. Doesn't leaving that out cause a problem when compared to clause 1? Could you be more specific? In my mind, that not a part of Debian meant not a part of main. Anyways, if leaving it out creates a problem, I'd like to understand what the probem is so I can fix it. I'm not sure. SC 1 says (in your amended version) Debian will remain 100% free software. If we're not clear that the non-free section is not a part of Debian, then this seems to be a contradiction. If this is a material change, we might have to stop distributing some package. Fine by me. Raul's wording covers more than CD manufacturers. Raul's wording also seems to suggest that we guarantee the distributability of software in main. Yes. Guaranteeing the distributability of software in main is one of the major points our guidelines address. I was always under the impression that people distributing main did so at their own risk, not ours, though we make our best effort. [p.s. I'm still thinking about whether free software community, Free Software community or Free Software Community is best. I'm not sure how I'd even make such a choice -- it's certainly not something I've spent any time thinking about.] If you want a poll, I'd vote for free software community with Free Software community being second. I'm pretty sure community should not be capitalized. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 22, 2004, at 13:39, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:30:07PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is only a noun. So, the most correct may be Internet-connected I don't like that -- it seems to make the sentence less pertinent. Here's someone else's opinion on the capitalization issue. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/cmosfaq/ cmosfaq.InternetWebandOtherPost-WatergateConcerns.html where, to summarize, they say that capitalized it means the ARPANet descendent, and uncapitalized it refer[s] simply to any network of computers. I think you mean Debian's archive on the capital-I Internet, then. [Personally, I don't think much of Internet-connected either. But it is unarguably correct.] Yes. Guaranteeing the distributability of software in main is one of the major points our guidelines address. I was always under the impression that people distributing main did so at their own risk, not ours, though we make our best effort. My proposal does not provide that kind of guarantee. It's the absence of an explicit non-guarantee of distributability, not the presence of an explicit guarantee of distributability. It doesn't, but it seems to imply it to someone who is not so familiar with what we do. I wouldn't use the word guarantee where you have. we do not guarantee all software in the non-free area may be distributed in other ways. It doesn't seem to make much sense to mention our lack of guarantee for non-free when, indeed, the following is true, too: we do not guarantee all software in the main area may be distributed in other ways. If you compare this to Andrew's (which is similar, if not the same as, the current SC): We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. His wording has no chance of implying a guarantee on main. Though it does need to be fixed, IMO, because CD manufacturers is very limiting. I don't think I'll be capitalizing it as Free Software community, because that would seem to imply that there is some specific community which we're making our priority, rather than some more general sense of the term. Odd. That's what I took Free Software Community to mean, as if there were some Free Software Cabal (TINC). So, I'd suggest my first choice of free software community, then. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Chad's comments (was Re: For M.J. Ray 1 of 3 -- changes from current social contract)
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: but not all is extraneous fluff. In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the needs of many users. This is important because of the current controversy over non-free. some, but not all does not do that. It just defines some in the middle of the sentence. I was very tempted to say but not most, instead of but not all, but I didn't have a basis for saying that. some, but not most can be shortened to a few New: We acknowledge that some of our users require software that do not conform with the DFSG. But it's not the software they require, it's what the software does for them that they require. We acknowledge that some of our users require functionality currently only provided by software that does not conform with the DFSG. Change some of to a few of or strike only in currently only to taste. I think this sentence fits in well with the goal of finding/creating free replacements. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial (again, with proper line breaks)
I realize that Raul Miller has not proposed his GR, and intends to hold off until at least tomorrow. This comparison is based on Raul Miller's DRAFT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew Suffield's GR, [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm going to ignore bland procedural text (like the first paragraph of Raul's draft). Also, I've taken the liberty of re-wrapping lines. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| 1. Debian will remain 100% free | 1. Debian will remain 100% free software | Pretty much the same thing. Slight wording difference. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| Debian exists to distribute a | general purpose system composed | of entirely free software. | Raul seems to define Debian's purpose explicitly here; Andrew leaves it (I assume) implicit. Andrew's we promise... sentence seems similar. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -- | As| We provide the guidelines that we use there are many definitions of| to determine if a work is free free software, we use the| in the document entitled The Debian Debian Free Software| Free Software Guidelines. Guidelines to determine if | software is free.| Raul keeps the original rationale for creating the DFSG. Andrew prefers to shorten it. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield | |We | promise that the Debian system and | all its components will be free | according to these guidelines. Andrew makes it very clear that Debian is free; both also state that the system will never depend on non-free items later on. Raul's explicit giving Debian purpose, above, probably serves many of the same goals as this sentence. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -- |--- We will also |We will support our users who develop| support people who create or use both and run other software on Debian | free and non-free works on Debian. -- free or non-free -- AFAICT, these say the same thing, just slightly differently. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield --|--- but we|We will never make the system | will never make the system require the depend on non-free software. | use of a non-free component. Again, the same thing. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -|- 2. We will give back to the free | 2. We will give back to the free software community | software community | When we write new components of the | When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license them | Debian system, we will license them in a manner consistent with the | in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We | Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will make the best system we can, so | will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely | that free works will be widely distributed and used. We will| distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug | communicate things such as bug fixes, improvements and user | fixes, improvements and user requests to the upstream authors | requests to the upstream authors of works included in our system. | of works included in our system. Word for word, these two are identical. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield -| 3. We will not hide problems | 3. We will not hide problems | We will keep our entire bug report | We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all | database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file | times. Reports that people file online will promptly become visible | online will promptly become visible to others. | to others. Identical, again. Raul Miller | Andrew Suffield - ---|- 4. Our priorities are our users and |
Re: Comparison of Raul Miller/20040119-13 and Andrew Suffield/GR Editorial
On Jan 20, 2004, at 23:19, Raul Miller wrote: Well, except for the ambiguity of what 100% free means without the word software. Free software is very specific, because of the DFSG. Yes, that's true. Raul adds in a transition phrase and the word internet (Raul: isn't Internet capitalized?). Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I'm using it as an adjective, not as a noun, not as a trademark, and not as part of a title. It's my impression that lower case is better here. I'm pretty sure proper nouns, when turned into adjectives, still are capitalized. Like the adjective German, for example. A quick check of the dictionary shows German, referring to Germany (not the familiar relation) is indeed capitalized. Also, checking the dictionary shows Internet is too, but that it is only a noun. So, the most correct may be Internet-connected These are fairly different. Raul does not include the statement that these are not part of Debian. Doesn't leaving that out cause a problem when compared to clause 1? Could you be more specific? In my mind, that not a part of Debian meant not a part of main. Anyways, if leaving it out creates a problem, I'd like to understand what the probem is so I can fix it. I'm not sure. SC 1 says (in your amended version) Debian will remain 100% free software. If we're not clear that the non-free section is not a part of Debian, then this seems to be a contradiction. If this is a material change, we might have to stop distributing some package. Fine by me. Raul's wording covers more than CD manufacturers. Raul's wording also seems to suggest that we guarantee the distributability of software in main. Yes. Guaranteeing the distributability of software in main is one of the major points our guidelines address. I was always under the impression that people distributing main did so at their own risk, not ours, though we make our best effort. [p.s. I'm still thinking about whether free software community, Free Software community or Free Software Community is best. I'm not sure how I'd even make such a choice -- it's certainly not something I've spent any time thinking about.] If you want a poll, I'd vote for free software community with Free Software community being second. I'm pretty sure community should not be capitalized.
Re: Chad's comments (was Re: For M.J. Ray 1 of 3 -- changes from current social contract)
On Jan 22, 2004, at 11:41, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 09:23:42AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote: but not all is extraneous fluff. In my opinion, it emphasizes the idea that we expect main to fill the needs of many users. This is important because of the current controversy over non-free. some, but not all does not do that. It just defines some in the middle of the sentence. I was very tempted to say but not most, instead of but not all, but I didn't have a basis for saying that. some, but not most can be shortened to a few New: We acknowledge that some of our users require software that do not conform with the DFSG. But it's not the software they require, it's what the software does for them that they require. We acknowledge that some of our users require functionality currently only provided by software that does not conform with the DFSG. Change some of to a few of or strike only in currently only to taste. I think this sentence fits in well with the goal of finding/creating free replacements.
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote: Nitpick: on-line, not online dictionary.com says both are acceptable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote: Nitpick: on-line, not online dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 20, 2004, at 04:25, Sergey Spiridonov wrote: but he can say We refuse to do it, because we are busy with working on free software replacement for what you are asking for and on other free software. Packaging this can lead us and your to non-ethical situations, but we have no free resources anyway. Well, the thing is that we can't force volunteers to do... anything. So, if no one wants to write a free replacement, no one will. Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of packaged BAZ, TAZ, and FROB, even if they aren't free. That really just leaves the question: Does the ethical action of being able to help some/most people by sharing non-free software outdo the unethical action of being unable to help some people, because the software is non-free? Or is the unethical action so bad that no amount of ethical actions can make up for it?
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical. Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping non-free will broke the upstream copy, or it will destroy the copy of those who downloded it? Where is the harm? There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do (because we were no longer able). I think it is reasonable that if we consider future non-ethical actions (in people we can't distribute non-free works to) that we consider future ethical actions as well (in people we can distribute those works to). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 21:59, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a package name registry, for example. Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though? I don't think so. The package name registry can be used by, and probably will be used by, free software as well. It just helps people who are, for whatever reason, maintaining apt sources for packages not included in Debian. I think it's just as likely to be used for, e.g., mplayer as for acrobat reader. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do (because we were no longer able). we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a GFDL like package for example). I don't think I was clear enough. If it is ethical to share, then currently, we are sharing our non-free archive with some people, and that is an ethical act. If we maintain the status quo, then in the future we will share non-free with more people. Since we're assuming sharing is ethical, then that is a good. If we drop non-free, we will no longer be able to perform that good. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote: Well, slander with argumentation is still slander. Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote: You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically, while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation. Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus can't be patently false. Neither can it be defamation or slander. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 18:27, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Remi Vanicat wrote: Sergey V. Spiridonov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In this case, I clearly disagree with you. By stopping to distribute non-free we will decrease the amount of good, and so act non-ethical. Where is this good, which we will decrease? Do you think that dropping non-free will broke the upstream copy, or it will destroy the copy of those who downloded it? Where is the harm? There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do (because we were no longer able). I think it is reasonable that if we consider future non-ethical actions (in people we can't distribute non-free works to) that we consider future ethical actions as well (in people we can distribute those works to).
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 21:59, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 05:10:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a package name registry, for example. Wouldn't that count as supporting non-free software though? I don't think so. The package name registry can be used by, and probably will be used by, free software as well. It just helps people who are, for whatever reason, maintaining apt sources for packages not included in Debian. I think it's just as likely to be used for, e.g., mplayer as for acrobat reader.
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote: Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do (because we were no longer able). we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a GFDL like package for example). I don't think I was clear enough. If it is ethical to share, then currently, we are sharing our non-free archive with some people, and that is an ethical act. If we maintain the status quo, then in the future we will share non-free with more people. Since we're assuming sharing is ethical, then that is a good. If we drop non-free, we will no longer be able to perform that good.
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote: Well, slander with argumentation is still slander. Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote: You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically, while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation. Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus can't be patently false. Neither can it be defamation or slander.
Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote: Yes: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL). No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the nonfree.org project, etc. Perhaps some of this value is pure convenience (being able to use apt-cache search and apt-get install to install documentation for a program they're trying to use). That isn't because a package is in Debian, it's because its in /etc/apt/sources.list. Perhaps some of this value is in the way we deal with conflicts and requirements (probably not an issue for GFDL, but an issue for some of the other software in non-free). With a little coordination with nonfree.org, none of that would change. So, when I'm talking about prevent distribution of, I'm talking about prevent distribution of non-free, not prevent distribution of upstream. But this GR doesn't do that. It just prevents it from being distributed on Debian's FTP servers. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not have it. Dropping non-free will have no affect, one way or the other, on Debian distributing Windows XP. I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer: If I don't have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since I do not have X. HTH. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free and users?
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is Raul. I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer: If I don't have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since I do not have X. HTH. Except that statement doesn't make sense in the context of the current discussion for arbitrary X. I don't see why not. How about: If neither I nor my friends have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since we do not have X. If that's still a true statement, then why does changing 'neither I nor my friends' to 'Debian does not' change that? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL). On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the nonfree.org project, etc. Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth. Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by the statement. Am I correct that you mean something more along the lines of: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL) using Debian servers. That isn't because a package is in Debian, it's because its in /etc/apt/sources.list. And adding entries to /etc/apt/sources.list grants other people root access to your system. There's a trust issue here. Every time Debian accepts a new maintainer, that happens too. Also, there's the namespace issue Ted T'so mentioned. Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a package name registry, for example. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote: Yes: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL). No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the nonfree.org project, etc. Perhaps some of this value is pure convenience (being able to use apt-cache search and apt-get install to install documentation for a program they're trying to use). That isn't because a package is in Debian, it's because its in /etc/apt/sources.list. Perhaps some of this value is in the way we deal with conflicts and requirements (probably not an issue for GFDL, but an issue for some of the other software in non-free). With a little coordination with nonfree.org, none of that would change. So, when I'm talking about prevent distribution of, I'm talking about prevent distribution of non-free, not prevent distribution of upstream. But this GR doesn't do that. It just prevents it from being distributed on Debian's FTP servers. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free and users?
On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 08:39, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 02:13:53PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: Dropping non-free (and associated SC clause) will mean preventing Debian developers from acting non-ethical. If I don't have Windows XP, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute it, since I do not have it. Dropping non-free will have no affect, one way or the other, on Debian distributing Windows XP. I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer: If I don't have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since I do not have X. HTH. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: non-free and users?
Apologies for the butchered attribution. Not sure what caused it, but I can't make sense of the attribution in Raul's post. I think the double-quoted text below is me, and I'm sure the single-quoted text is Raul. I think he used XP as an example. Substitute in X if you prefer: If I don't have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since I do not have X. HTH. Except that statement doesn't make sense in the context of the current discussion for arbitrary X. I don't see why not. How about: If neither I nor my friends have X, it will be ethical to reject a request to distribute X, since we do not have X. If that's still a true statement, then why does changing 'neither I nor my friends' to 'Debian does not' change that?
Re: non-free and users?
On Jan 18, 2004, at 13:53, Raul Miller wrote: On Sun, 2004-01-18 at 05:31, Raul Miller wrote: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL). On Sun, Jan 18, 2004 at 11:44:31AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: No it wouldn't. Nothing would prevent a developer from joining the nonfree.org project, etc. Brushing your teeth prevents tooth decay. That doesn't mean that you'll never get cavities if you brush your teeth. Ah, I misunderstood what you meant by the statement. Am I correct that you mean something more along the lines of: Dropping non-free would prevent Debian developers from distributing any non-free packages (such as GFDL) using Debian servers. That isn't because a package is in Debian, it's because its in /etc/apt/sources.list. And adding entries to /etc/apt/sources.list grants other people root access to your system. There's a trust issue here. Every time Debian accepts a new maintainer, that happens too. Also, there's the namespace issue Ted T'so mentioned. Coordination fixes that. It'd be fairly simple for debian to host a package name registry, for example.
Re: Namespaces, was: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to see it. The popcon results posted to -vote a few days ago showed the top non-free packages were either never available in Debian (several java ones) or were long ago removed (acrobat reader). Of course, all the problems with popcon apply. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote: 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards Should this say Software that doesn't instead? Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does documentation == software? No, not all software is documentation. However, for Debian purposes, everything that is on the CD (ftp site, whatever) is software. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Namespaces, was: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 13, 2004, at 07:38, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I think are you exaggerating a bit there. I doubt that a large fraction of our users are using any non-Debian repositories. Of course I don't have evidence so if you have any contrary to this I'd be pleased to see it. The popcon results posted to -vote a few days ago showed the top non-free packages were either never available in Debian (several java ones) or were long ago removed (acrobat reader). Of course, all the problems with popcon apply.
Re: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
On Jan 13, 2004, at 08:25, Dale E Martin wrote: 5. Programs that don't meet our free-software standards Should this say Software that doesn't instead? Perhaps I missed this in all of the GFDL discussions of the past, but does documentation == software? No, not all software is documentation. However, for Debian purposes, everything that is on the CD (ftp site, whatever) is software.
Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote: Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then. No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote. Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew's deletion of part 5. I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:57, Raul Miller wrote: I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too. So does this mean that the edits go on a separate ballot from his other proposal? I believe that is the plan. If so, what does that mean if something other than exactly this these two proposals win on one or the other of the ballots? I think the idea is that we do one of them first and once that's done, decide how to proceed. If, for example, we were to drop SC 5, Andrew would drop his SC 5 changes in the editorial changes GR. If we make significant editorial changes in the non-free ballot, and that one comes before Andrew's editorial one, I'd assume he'd withdraw his editorial changes ballot. I'd strongly encourage people to keep proposals on the non-free ballot germane: They should all concern Debian's support (or non-support) of software that does not meet the DFSG. I'd also strongly encourage people to keep proposals on the editorial changes ballot germane: They should all concern wording changes with little, if any, effect on the meaning of the document. I think if we do that, the two should be fairly easy to reconcile. [And, since Andrew hasn't been willing to state what problems he's trying to solve, it may very well be that this is fine from Andrew's point of view as well.] I think Andrew considers non-free being on Debian's servers a problem in and of itself. This is, I imagine, not a technical problem but a political one to him. As for the editorial changes, I think he (and Branden, myself, and many others, who started and helped with those changes) believe that the problem is that the Social Contract is not as clear and eloquent as it could be. Historically, a lot of that was the result of the GFDL flamewar on -legal about the definition of software. Some people were not clear it included documentation, but we received definitive clarification from Bruce Perens. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200308/ msg00690.html. Actually, I believe some clarifications were discussed (strictly speaking, in OT threads) on -legal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like: Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5 That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which would, in combination with an extra configuration file, warn the user when he might be about to install a package he's not allowed to use, according to the license. I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example, is _very_ broad. Off-hand, I think that when we're asked on -legal, DFSG is failed the most often, and in a variety of non-obvious ways. Look at the number of ways the GFDL fails DFSG 3. You'd never expect most of them. I think it too 'til the third very lengthy analysis on -legal to find them. I think having a simple text file describing them, intended towards reasonably knowledgeable human readers, is the best bet. Something like the vrms suggestion. It could even be tersely put in the long description, where people could see it before installing the package. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Proposal] Updating the Social Contract
On Jan 11, 2004, at 18:06, Raul Miller wrote: Debian's Social Contract with its Users Our social contract seems to be with both our users and the free software community; see 4.
Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)
On Jan 11, 2004, at 22:58, Raul Miller wrote: Are you talking back in the year 2000? That split would have made sense, back then, because of the limitations of our voting system back then. No, he's talking several months ago. It's all in the archives of -vote. Even with the split, updating the social contract with a new part 5 would mean that we have a part 5, which would cancel the effect of Andrew's deletion of part 5. I hope developers in general are smart enough to handle this one. If clause 5 is dropped, then obviously the edits for it will be, too.
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 12, 2004, at 14:08, Wouter Verhelst wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 08:43:11AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: good idea. perhaps something easily parsable like: Non-DFSG: 1, 3, 5 That's really a good suggestion. It could then also be used for other purposes, e.g., an extension to apt which would, in combination with an extra configuration file, warn the user when he might be about to install a package he's not allowed to use, according to the license. I don't think it'd be sufficient to do that with. DFSG 3, for example, is _very_ broad. Off-hand, I think that when we're asked on -legal, DFSG is failed the most often, and in a variety of non-obvious ways. Look at the number of ways the GFDL fails DFSG 3. You'd never expect most of them. I think it too 'til the third very lengthy analysis on -legal to find them. I think having a simple text file describing them, intended towards reasonably knowledgeable human readers, is the best bet. Something like the vrms suggestion. It could even be tersely put in the long description, where people could see it before installing the package.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote: But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So, currently, some of the contents is very much not free. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:21, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote: Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence becomes a composite of the GPL and his additional restrictions. But we're not the author. Yeah, the author always has the right to copy and distribute the files, but I don't see how that applies here. Actually, I think the real point here is that the packaging --- e.g., debian/rules, etc. is under GPL. The mmix source code is just data to the GPL stuff, or aggregation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 9, 2004, at 21:41, Raul Miller wrote: But is that because of what's contained in non-free or is that because of the name non-free? Currently, jdk1.1 is in non-free (or at least was last I looked). So, currently, some of the contents is very much not free.
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Jan 10, 2004, at 18:21, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +, Oliver Elphick wrote: Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source. If it is all the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence becomes a composite of the GPL and his additional restrictions. But we're not the author. Yeah, the author always has the right to copy and distribute the files, but I don't see how that applies here. Actually, I think the real point here is that the packaging --- e.g., debian/rules, etc. is under GPL. The mmix source code is just data to the GPL stuff, or aggregation.
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
[ I've taken the liberty of cc'ing debian-legal, where license issues are discussed. -legal readers probably want to drop -vote. Reply-to set. ] On Jan 10, 2004, at 02:57, Craig Sanders wrote: X3270 - x3270 seems to be free. IMO, maintainer is overly cautious about license. I just read the copyright file in x3270 and either this is free, or we can't distribute it at all, even in non-free. Copyright © 1989 by Georgia Tech Research Corporation, Atlanta, GA 30332. All Rights Reserved. GTRC hereby grants public use of this software. Derivative works based on this software must incorporate this copyright notice. Strictly speaking, this does not appear to give permission to distribute the software. The fonts copyright (if it's even valid, bitmap fonts can't be copyrighted in the US) is fine, AFAICT. The copyright notice for the 5250 emulation just reads: 5250 Emulation Code Copyright © Minolta (Schweiz) AG, Beat Rubischon. This is worrying, as no license appears to be granted. I'd need to check the source code to be sure. Either this package should be removed (because we can't distribute it at all) or put in main, IMO. POSSIBLE MISTAKES - edict seems like it may be free. long complicated license. Several problems I see: b. must undertake not to assert copyright over any portion of the files. (Prohibits me from enforcing my copyrights, if the edict happens to misappropriate my work.) c. may use the file for personal purposes such as to assist with reading texts, research, translation services, etc. (This appears to disallow non-personal use, such as commercial use. However, it must be a no-op because commercial use is explicitly permitted at the end...) i. must either make every endeavour to ensure that the versions of the files they distribute are the most recent available, or must make the version and date clear and prominent in their documentation, WWW page, etc. and supply information as to where and how the most recent version may be obtained. Blech. We might be able to argue that we make the version and date prominent, and thus fall under that exception. Otherwise, time to file a bug on ftp.d.o for removal. k. may use these files as part of, or in association with a software package or system. Full acknowledgement of the source of the files must be made both in the promotional material, WWW pages and software documentation, Aren't we using these files as part of or in association with a system, namely Debian GNU/Linux? If so, time for removal. Any individual or organization in possession of copies of the files, upon becoming aware that a possible copyright infringement may be present in the files, must undertake to contact the Group immediately with details of the possible infringement. This probably fails the desert island test. All permissions for use of the files granted by James William Breen prior to March 2000 will be honoured and maintained, however the placing of the KANJD212 and EDICTH files under the GNU GPL has been withdrawn as of 25 March 2000. This simply put doesn't make sense. It's not clear how you can un-GPL a work, but they seem to claim to while at the same time saying they're not. With regard to the Frequency codes, Mr Halpern has stated as follows: The commercial utilization of the frequency numbers is prohibited without written permission from Jack Halpern. Use by individuals and small groups for reference and research purposes is permitted, on condition that acknowledgement of the source and this notice are included. Obviously non-free, and probably very silly (see Feist) in the U.S. at least. edict-fpw part GPL, part same as edict. This appears to belong in contrib, not non-free. It sounds like it is essentially an installer which functions by transforming the non-free edict. mmix-srcpart GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free? There have been very long arguments on -legal about 'must rename source files' on -legal. One reason: Can we modify the files, then distribute binaries produced from modified sources? I'm not sure; Knuth's licenses are notoriously unclear... mocka BSD-style license with noxious advertising clause. why is this in non-free? No idea. molphy very simple license says it is free software. fails to have an explicit clause allowing modification. clarification would be good, but IMO there is no compelling reason why this can't go in main. Because copyright law says we can't create derivative works unless the copyright holder says we can, and he hasn't. This is a great
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well as unrar because unrar can't actually
unrar everything.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Statistics on non-free usage
On Jan 8, 2004, at 15:51, John Goerzen wrote:
I was actually surprised at the popularity of {un}rar. I rarely see
RAR
files used anywhere.
As one of the many people with rar/unrar on my system,
alt.binaries.multimedia.* uses it a lot. e.g. a.b.m.anime.
And you have to have rar as well as unrar because unrar can't actually
unrar everything.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. and we must stop distributing any GNU software that is distributed *WITH* non-free documentation. That does not follow. We can distribute their software without the documentation. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote: I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and thus the it you would have us vote on would not resolve anything. If it turns out that a supermajority of Debian's developers do not believe Debian should distribute non-free, then it does indeed resolve something. And if it turns out the other way, then I think it's resolved until at least another few years, when opinions may of changed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. Heh. You do not see the contradiction in these two statements? Other than the contradiction in the Free Software Foundation producing non-free software, my statements above appear barely above the level of a tautology. They do not appear contradictory. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 6, 2004, at 22:00, Raul Miller wrote: I submit you're not interested in solving any real problem here, and thus the it you would have us vote on would not resolve anything. If it turns out that a supermajority of Debian's developers do not believe Debian should distribute non-free, then it does indeed resolve something. And if it turns out the other way, then I think it's resolved until at least another few years, when opinions may of changed.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 6, 2004, at 17:59, Craig Sanders wrote: then by your logic, we must stop distributing GNU/FSF documentation, If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. and we must stop distributing any GNU software that is distributed *WITH* non-free documentation. That does not follow. We can distribute their software without the documentation.
Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Jan 7, 2004, at 09:45, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 07:40:58 -0500, Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: If the committee currently working with the FSF on the issue does not resolve it, then yes. Works not meeting the DFSG can not go in main, and without non-free, they would not be distributed by Debian at all. Heh. You do not see the contradiction in these two statements? Other than the contradiction in the Free Software Foundation producing non-free software, my statements above appear barely above the level of a tautology. They do not appear contradictory.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Prove that it isn't. It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate his assumptions. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Prove that it isn't. It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate his assumptions.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 6, 2004, at 08:00, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 04:01:43AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: On Jan 5, 2004, at 22:03, Hamish Moffatt wrote: I'm not going to respond to that, other than to point out that it is based on the assumption that non-free is important and useful. Prove that it isn't. It is the duty of the proponent to prove his arguments and demonstrate his assumptions. You (and Andrew Suffield, John Goerzen etc) are advocating the removal of non-free, so I believe the burden of proof is yours. On the overall issue, perhaps[0]. However, on each argument, either for against non-free, the burden is on the arguer. If you want to change the status quo, convince the voters. [0]: Unless, of course, the voters are already convinced, in which case practically it rests upon the proponents of keeping non-free.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 5, 2004, at 07:10, MJ Ray wrote: Some level of support for this would probably actually improve debian, especially non-debian packages of software and any hypothetical distribution of services when we dominate the world. Maybe package metadata should include info for reportbug-type packages to use. /usr/share/doc/reportbug/README.developers (It's already there, and has been for a while) What else could be useful here? Should clause 1's non-free terms be recast as non-debian and pledge support for interoperability? Interoperability is nice, but doing stuff right is more important. We already pledge to support our users in SC 4; not sure why we need it in SC 1 as well.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote: On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to stop putting any further effort into non-free? No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software on its servers. Anyone, Developer or not, may continue to put as much effort into non-free software as they want, with the caveat that Debian resources will not be used to aid them. Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? Here are some, with references: golden rule (GNU Manifesto) I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in non-free with others? Another section of that document deal with how not sharing source code is wrong. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to. friendship (GNU Manifesto) How is drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits take up that distribution an example of friendship? When read along with RMS's opinion on needing source code, marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay) This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the distribution of non-free in the absence of such replacements. However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do. is a good line. Right above it, btw, is the one about [n]one of the users can adapt or fix the program which covers our non-free section Proprietary Software (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software) This talks about how to use words such as free and non-free in a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution of non-free. The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program. Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better to call our non-free software something else more meaningful -- perhaps semi-free. Some of non-free is only non-free for, e.g., no commercial use in the license. But a lot of it is non-free because it's quite proprietary: We have no source, had we source we have no right to create derivative works, etc. _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay) I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of non-free. However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom to choose any license you want for software you write'. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom. Even when there is no monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A choice of masters is not freedom. Also, if in doubt, I'm sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] will confirm that he is very much morally opposed to distributing non-free software. What about BTS? Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla now. Gnome is in main. I'm aware of that. I just used them as an example of someone outside the project who has managed to set up and use debbugs. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 23:03, Andrew Suffield wrote: As a matter of form, please keep rationale out of the body of resolutions - otherwise you raise a quandry for people who agree with the resolution but disagree with the rationale. Ah. Understood. Will do so in the future. I encourage anyone who wants to propose my suggestion to do so as well. Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org. Does this really require about two or three years of planning? I don't know. However, I personally hope that we can get sarge out soon --- in a few months, as you mentioned --- and that probably isn't enough time to have infrastructure ready to support non-free in sarge. Just look how long it is taking to repair after the security breach, and I think debian-admin and ftpmasters have a long head start on a hypothetical non-free.org. More to the point, I think these sort of decisions are difficult to make for N years in the future, because you don't really know what the situation will be by then. Certainly non-free is less important now than it was when it was first created, and that is a large part of the reason why we're having this discussion. The suggestion I made only moves the decision out a few months, not years. Non-free will be dropped from sid (and maybe testing) the day sarge is released. The benefit of that is that we give users of our stable distribution much notice that they have to either migrate away from non-free software, or set up non-free.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. Those people may want to take a look at my alternate suggestion of making sarge the last release with non-free. That would provide ample opportunity to set up nonfree.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote: and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a mozilla based browser. ... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)? and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 22:45, Raul Miller wrote: On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 10:05:31PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. That's the point of this vote, isn't it? To get people to stop putting any further effort into non-free? No. It's to get the Debian Project to stop supporting non-free software on its servers. Anyone, Developer or not, may continue to put as much effort into non-free software as they want, with the caveat that Debian resources will not be used to aid them. Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? Here are some, with references: golden rule (GNU Manifesto) I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. So how is this a justification for not sharing programs in non-free with others? Another section of that document deal with how not sharing source code is wrong. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the law enables him to. friendship (GNU Manifesto) How is drop the distribution of non-free and let commercial outfits take up that distribution an example of friendship? When read along with RMS's opinion on needing source code, marketing arrangements now typically used essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay) This is a good argument for replacing non-free software with free software. I don't see, however, the justification for dropping the distribution of non-free in the absence of such replacements. However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do. is a good line. Right above it, btw, is the one about [n]one of the users can adapt or fix the program which covers our non-free section Proprietary Software (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software) This talks about how to use words such as free and non-free in a meaningful fashion. This is not a basis for dropping distribution of non-free. The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program. Aside from that, we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program. Note, however, that in this context it would probably be better to call our non-free software something else more meaningful -- perhaps semi-free. Some of non-free is only non-free for, e.g., no commercial use in the license. But a lot of it is non-free because it's quite proprietary: We have no source, had we source we have no right to create derivative works, etc. _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay) I see nothing here to justify dropping the distribution of non-free. However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the 'freedom to choose any license you want for software you write'. We reject this because it is really a form of power, not a freedom. Even when there is no monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A choice of masters is not freedom. Also, if in doubt, I'm sure [EMAIL PROTECTED] will confirm that he is very much morally opposed to distributing non-free software. What about BTS? Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla now. Gnome is in main. I'm aware of that. I just used them as an example of someone outside the project who has managed to set up and use debbugs.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:00, Mark Brown wrote: I think there's room for something along the lines of I want to spin non-free off as a separate project. Much of the concern over dropping non-free seems to be about having things just suddenly vanish. Those people may want to take a look at my alternate suggestion of making sarge the last release with non-free. That would provide ample opportunity to set up nonfree.org.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 4, 2004, at 16:19, Sven Luther wrote: and it is still not possible to look at some banking web pages with a mozilla based browser. ... and it is with Netscape Communicator (if that is still in non-free)? and what about KHTML browsers, like Konqueror?
Another Non-Free Proposal
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remove non-free. PROPOSAL 1 - Whereas, the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide, freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or unable to provide their code freely to the public; the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: It is resolved that, After the release of Sarge, Debian shall not continue to include non-free in testing or unstable. Sarge shall be the last release of Debian to include a non-free section. We will continue to support the non-free section of Sarge for as long as the free section of it. People who still require non-free software after that are encouraged to set up their own distribution network for it. To effect this, a new version of the Social Contract with only clauses 1 through 4 is hereby issued. The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. Note that nothing in here changes our promise to support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, which is in clause 1 of the Social Contract. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote: Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun implementation, and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them. That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to Debian. Having them in main could encourage people to work on them. I think I wasn't clear enough. Many Java applications will not run on any free JVM, because the free JVMs aren't complete enough. Certainly the JVMs go in main, but the applications that don't work with the free JVMs must stay in contrib: Social Contract 1 makes that fairly clear. Because they don't, as far as their maintainers know, work with any Java in main. That's something the community (we as well) should work on. At least members of the community interested in Java. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remove non-free. Thanks for posting this. I think it's probably the best statement of what this non-free proposal might be about that I've seen to date. PROPOSAL 1 - Whereas, the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide, freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or unable to provide their code freely to the public; Two issues here: morality, and equitablity. [*] Morality: can you provide any reference to this moral code? I refer to individual moral codes in that statement. The project, of course, does not have one. One such moral code that is widely known (though not of a developer) is as http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [*] Equitability: what is the unfairness, specifically See above. the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and How do you measure this? I do not have a quantitative measurement of this. I do notice, from personal experience, that my reliance on non-free software has lessened. For example, first with more able versions of konqueror, then with Mozilla). For example, with PNG support in all major browsers, and now with the GIF patent expiring. With Ogg Vorbis over MP3, and there now even being several portable Vorbis players. With GCC's ever-improving PowerPC support. With MySQL and PostgreSQL being able to do what I used to have to use Oracle, etc. for. outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: I don't know what you're talking about here -- perhaps you should ennumerate these groups. http://www.apt-get.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century government? Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved that. I don't see the point in doing this now. If my proposed resolution doesn't go through, then we can and should merely vote on it again every few years, for as long as there is reason to think that a significant body of developers would like to see non-free gone. Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote: So... back to the point at hand: a vote about non-free won't answer the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't address the issues people have about non-free. Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on the ballot. In addition, if you support an option not on the ballot, you can vote further discussion. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Another Non-Free Proposal
I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remove non-free. PROPOSAL 1 - Whereas, the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide, freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or unable to provide their code freely to the public; the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: It is resolved that, After the release of Sarge, Debian shall not continue to include non-free in testing or unstable. Sarge shall be the last release of Debian to include a non-free section. We will continue to support the non-free section of Sarge for as long as the free section of it. People who still require non-free software after that are encouraged to set up their own distribution network for it. To effect this, a new version of the Social Contract with only clauses 1 through 4 is hereby issued. The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. Note that nothing in here changes our promise to support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, which is in clause 1 of the Social Contract.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 3, 2004, at 02:15, Martin Schulze wrote: Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun implementation, and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them. That, however, is no reason to avoid Free Software being added to Debian. Having them in main could encourage people to work on them. I think I wasn't clear enough. Many Java applications will not run on any free JVM, because the free JVMs aren't complete enough. Certainly the JVMs go in main, but the applications that don't work with the free JVMs must stay in contrib: Social Contract 1 makes that fairly clear. Because they don't, as far as their maintainers know, work with any Java in main. That's something the community (we as well) should work on. At least members of the community interested in Java.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 17:02, Raul Miller wrote: On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 03:00:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: I am not a DD (yet), and this is not a GR proposal (yet). However, I'm requesting comments on it, and maybe it'll be more tenable to people more reluctant to remove non-free. Thanks for posting this. I think it's probably the best statement of what this non-free proposal might be about that I've seen to date. PROPOSAL 1 - Whereas, the Debian Project exists to create a distribution of free software; many Developers do not consider it moral or equitable to provide, freely, our project's resources to projects who are unwilling or unable to provide their code freely to the public; Two issues here: morality, and equitablity. [*] Morality: can you provide any reference to this moral code? I refer to individual moral codes in that statement. The project, of course, does not have one. One such moral code that is widely known (though not of a developer) is as http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/philosophy.html [*] Equitability: what is the unfairness, specifically See above. the importance of non-free software has greatly decreased since the founding of the project; and How do you measure this? I do not have a quantitative measurement of this. I do notice, from personal experience, that my reliance on non-free software has lessened. For example, first with more able versions of konqueror, then with Mozilla). For example, with PNG support in all major browsers, and now with the GIF patent expiring. With Ogg Vorbis over MP3, and there now even being several portable Vorbis players. With GCC's ever-improving PowerPC support. With MySQL and PostgreSQL being able to do what I used to have to use Oracle, etc. for. outside groups have been quite able to provide well-integrated software no harder to obtain than that from Debian's own mirror network: I don't know what you're talking about here -- perhaps you should ennumerate these groups. http://www.apt-get.org/
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 18:00, Steve Langasek wrote: The major effective difference in this proposal is that Sarge will still include non-free, in order to give people plenty of time (3 years?) to migrate to free alternatives or find different hosting for their non-free packages. harumph So the palatibility of this proposal depends on the premise that our release schedules will continue to get worse? I'm not sure that's getting worse. How long was it between potato's release and its eventual end, remembering it remained oldstable for a while? But, let's be honest, it'll be a while before Sarge is move to archive.d.o.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 19:59, Raul Miller wrote: I don't see anything there which which would justify forcing people to not support non-free. Well, nothing is _forcing_ someone else not to. Mind pointing out the specific moral precept involved? Here are some, with references: golden rule (GNU Manifesto) friendship (GNU Manifesto) _Why Software Should Be Free_ (entire essay) Proprietary Software (Categories of Free and Non-Free Software) _Freedom or Power?_ (entire essay) etc. http://www.apt-get.org/ What about BTS? Gnome used to use debbugs, though maybe they have switched to Bugzilla now.
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Jan 3, 2004, at 20:42, Andrew Suffield wrote: Good grief, could you have made it any more unreadable? I thought I already demonstrated that you could do it in about five lines and in plain English. What's with the simulation of a 19th century government? Well, e.g., Raul Miller complained about the lack of a rationale. So I provided one. Feel free to only include the part after it is resolved that. I don't see the point in doing this now. If my proposed resolution doesn't go through, then we can and should merely vote on it again every few years, for as long as there is reason to think that a significant body of developers would like to see non-free gone. Possibly, people would like to be able to plan ahead and have some time to replace Debian's infrastructure with, say, a non-free.org.
Re: The Free vs. Non-Free issue
On Jan 3, 2004, at 21:56, Raul Miller wrote: So... back to the point at hand: a vote about non-free won't answer the question of what we want to do about non-free if the vote doesn't address the issues people have about non-free. Any option supported by, what is is, 8 developers can go on the ballot. In addition, if you support an option not on the ballot, you can vote further discussion.
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 2, 2004, at 01:38, Craig Sanders wrote: I second this, with the following amendment: s/this/Craig Sanders/ ObVote: no, I don't really second cas's suggestion i'm sorry, i forgot to say NOT any form of sarcasm or irony without such a subtle-as-a-sledgehammer hint is obviously beyond you. Branden's amendment was clearly in jest. i'll try to remember this in future, for the benefit of you and your fellow americans. Branden, please keep up the witty remarks to leave Craig Sanders and his fellow Australians dazed, confused, and lost, just as if they had just been hit over the head with a sledgehammer. For the Australians in the audience: IOW, if you're going to dish out sarcastic amendments, don't be offended when sarcastic ones are offered in return. [ Sorry if this has offended people. As an American myself, I must object to the characterization of /all/ Americans as incapable of subtle humor; such a characterization is no more accurate than that of the French as capable of nothing but surrender or that Irishmen as perpetually drunk off their feet: These are only true for the vast majority, not the entirety of their respective country. I mean, really, somewhere there must be a sober Irishman! Sure, it might only be due to his indefinite detainment by Ashcroft as a material witless, but that still counts, right? ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 2, 2004, at 01:38, Craig Sanders wrote: I second this, with the following amendment: s/this/Craig Sanders/ ObVote: no, I don't really second cas's suggestion i'm sorry, i forgot to say NOT any form of sarcasm or irony without such a subtle-as-a-sledgehammer hint is obviously beyond you. Branden's amendment was clearly in jest. i'll try to remember this in future, for the benefit of you and your fellow americans. Branden, please keep up the witty remarks to leave Craig Sanders and his fellow Australians dazed, confused, and lost, just as if they had just been hit over the head with a sledgehammer. For the Australians in the audience: IOW, if you're going to dish out sarcastic amendments, don't be offended when sarcastic ones are offered in return. [ Sorry if this has offended people. As an American myself, I must object to the characterization of /all/ Americans as incapable of subtle humor; such a characterization is no more accurate than that of the French as capable of nothing but surrender or that Irishmen as perpetually drunk off their feet: These are only true for the vast majority, not the entirety of their respective country. I mean, really, somewhere there must be a sober Irishman! Sure, it might only be due to his indefinite detainment by Ashcroft as a material witless, but that still counts, right? ]
Re: GR: Removal of non-free
On Jan 2, 2004, at 14:37, MJ Ray wrote: On 2004-01-01 10:50:53 + Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At the moment that is not a good answer in my opinion, as it would mean losing much of the current Java support. I thought there were some Java systems which could go in Debian now. Is that correct? Not really. They don't have all the features of the Sun implementation, and much (most?) java software doesn't work with them. If so, why aren't those things you named in main? I have heard that the contrib Tomcat is a particular irritation to some users. Because they don't, as far as their maintainers know, work with any Java in main.
