Re: license [was Re: Doubts and Ideas]
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: In any event, to resolve this issue completely While we're at it. Since we obviously have time-related issues with the complete solution :) can someone suggest an alternate phrasing for /license that would not be false? How do we reference webwml committers as a group without the reference being legally invalid? I think we reference them as original authors and copyright holders or similar. The committing is not really significant for copyright, is it? Suggested phrasing: Copyright 1997-2006 a href=http://cvs.debian.org/?root=webwml;original authors and copyright holders/a and published by a href=http://www.spi-inc.org/;Software in the Public Interest, Inc./a, P.O. Box 501248, Indianapolis, IN 46250-6248, United States. This material may be distributed subject to the terms and conditions offered by the original authors [optional addition if we have a required licence: or under the terms of ...] Debian and the debian logo are trademarks of [...] Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
Hi! * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070531 12:40]: - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feels he should be contacted and isn't d-a? d-a as in debian-announce? Yours sincerely, Alexander signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, 27 May 2007 18:20:40 -0300 Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: About Who's using Debian and CD Vendors = It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take care of those submissions, I think it would help a lot people doing this job to keep track of what was already included and what still needs to be done, the system could even send e-mails to -www-cvs. Something like that for Who's using Debian would be very nice. -- Regards, Kaare -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:07:47PM +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: Hi! * Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña [EMAIL PROTECTED] [070531 12:40]: - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feels he should be contacted and isn't d-a? d-a as in debian-announce? Yes, there's lots of non-DDs that have contributed to the site and there's even some people out there who are using the content (specially security advisories) of the site in some other programs based on its license. All of them should get a forward notice of the change. IMHO of course Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 10:31:41 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it would enable us to use the work in combination with any other license, so would be ok. And kinda draconian. Why are we being so hell bent on restricting the free license choices for our contributors? As long as the licenses are free, why dowe feel the need to be in control so much? It's not that we need to be in control, but that actually changing the license is such a pain that we really only want to do it once. The more restrictive the license we pick, the more likely it is we'll have to revisit this. Since contributors can't always be contacted, the more time passes, the more difficult (or impossible) it will become. If it is at all possible, I want to solve it once and not have to revisit it again. If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now nor in the future. Indeed, if the initial license is free, there should be no reason for Debian to ever change the licensing away from the free license, so it being Hard to do is irrelevant. The web site is a collection of aggregated works; so I don't see the need to even have the same free license at all. manoj -- Whom are you? said he, for he had been to night school. George Ade Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now nor in the future. We'd have to revisit it in cases where works in the website which we would like to combine are under different, conflicting free licenses. Indeed, if the initial license is free, there should be nxo reason for Debian to ever change the licensing away from the free license, so it being Hard to do is irrelevant. It wouldn't be necessary to change away, but it could become necessary to add additional licenses. The more liberal the licences granted, the less of a problem this would be. The web site is a collection of aggregated works; so I don't see the need to even have the same free license at all. The works are often combined, and many parts of the website have multiple different contributors. We have to be able to distribute the resulting works, so whatever licensing scheme we come up with has to be compatible. Don Armstrong -- UF: What's your favourite coffee blend? PD: Dark Crude with heavy water. You are understandink? If geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is just not thick. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:12:22 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now nor in the future. We'd have to revisit it in cases where works in the website which we would like to combine are under different, conflicting free licenses. The website is an aggregation of works. As long as you are just publishing such an aggregation, you donot need to combine licences. Indeed, if the initial license is free, there should be nxo reason for Debian to ever change the licensing away from the free license, so it being Hard to do is irrelevant. It wouldn't be necessary to change away, but it could become necessary to add additional licenses. The more liberal the licences granted, the less of a problem this would be. Umm, no. I don't want, for instance, the BSD license to be attached to my works, on a matter of principle, even though it is a free license. I don't see why Dewbian wants to force licenses on me in order to get my contribution. The web site is a collection of aggregated works; so I don't see the need to even have the same free license at all. The works are often combined, and many parts of the website have multiple different contributors. We have to be able to distribute the resulting works, so whatever licensing scheme we come up with has to be compatible. Why do licenses of merely aggregated works have to be compatible? Heck, we distribute CD's of works from different people, and the licenses are not all compatible. Why is the web site so special? As far as I know, there never has been, and nothing is being contemplated, which distributes the website apart from mirroing it. Even then, you can just state the website is an aggregation of works. I don't think you have made your case that this is note merely a desire for control over works by other people. manoj -- A penny saved kills your career in government. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 14:12:22 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Sun, 03 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: If the license is free, we need not be changing it at all, either now nor in the future. We'd have to revisit it in cases where works in the website which we would like to combine are under different, conflicting free licenses. The website is an aggregation of works. As long as you are just publishing such an aggregation, you donot need to combine licences. Sure, but we're going to be combining works (or at least the works of different contributors) in the vast majority of cases. I don't want, for instance, the BSD license to be attached to my works, on a matter of principle, even though it is a free license. I don't see why Dewbian wants to force licenses on me in order to get my contribution. We can't force licenses on anyone of course; it's just that some level of restriction on the class of licenses that can be accepted is necessary. A contributor who was equally adamant about using the 4 clause BSD would conceivably pose a similar problem. As far as I know, there never has been, and nothing is being contemplated, which distributes the website apart from mirroing it. Parts of the website are distributable in print form, and I know bits of Bugs/ are present in various frontends when describing tags and severity levels. That said, this is a side issue of finding a good set of licences; the main is compatibility within the website when you have multiple contributors who have contributed to the same page who license their contributions incompatibly. I don't think you have made your case that this is note merely a desire for control over works by other people. I personally care not one iota who actually controls the works at the end of the day, I just want find a resolution that is acceptable to all or at least the vast majority of contributors which hopefully avoids having to revisit this issue in the future. If that's not the case, then as close as I can get to that goal is going to have to be good enough. Don Armstrong -- I was thinking seven figures, he said, but I would have taken a hundred grand. I'm not a greedy person. [All for a moldy bottle of tropicana.] -- Sammi Hadzovic [in Andy Newman's 2003/02/14 NYT article.] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/14/nyregion/14EYEB.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: While my preference is the GPL V2; I would be willing to accept any DFSG free license, if asked. But signing away my rights mean that, in theory, Debian can decide to change the license to something unacceptable (look at documentation the FSF changed from GPL to GFDL, and none of the authors had _any_ say in that). Not assigning copyright helps keep Debian honest. Sure; the second option doesn't involve copyright assignment, but gives Debian a licence to the work such that it can pick any DFSG Free license subject to approval via GR (or whatever) in the future, in case we need to relicense the webpages. As I said, I am not willing to accept what a future GR does to the freedom of my contributions. I have been running GR's for a while, and I know how silly some of the winners are. The doc relicensing to the GFDL by the FSF comes to mind here. Of course, MIT/Expat is close enough to such a license that it probably doesn't matter. How about the following instead, then: 1) Copyright assignment to SPI using http://ftp.xemacs.org/old-beta/FSF/assign.changes or similar, modified to do the assignment to SPI under the direction of Debian. -or- 2) MIT/Expat license by each contributor. 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it would enable us to use the work in combination with any other license, so would be ok. And kinda draconian. Why are we being so hell bent on restricting the free license choices for our contributors? As long as the licenses are free, why dowe feel the need to be in control so much? Faced with just these choices, I am beginning to feel the urge to resist anything but GPL v3 for my contributions :) manoj -- Half of being smart is knowing what you're dumb at. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sat, 02 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 16:57:25 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: 2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it would enable us to use the work in combination with any other license, so would be ok. And kinda draconian. Why are we being so hell bent on restricting the free license choices for our contributors? As long as the licenses are free, why dowe feel the need to be in control so much? It's not that we need to be in control, but that actually changing the license is such a pain that we really only want to do it once. The more restrictive the license we pick, the more likely it is we'll have to revisit this. Since contributors can't always be contacted, the more time passes, the more difficult (or impossible) it will become. If it is at all possible, I want to solve it once and not have to revisit it again. Don Armstrong -- Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:03:19PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote: The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big improvement over the previous state: ...the previous state being that a vendor mails assorted bits of information to a mail address, and then a human editor *must* take their input apart weed out the garbage, and rewrite data into WML syntax. [...] FWIW, I'm unable to send my comments (quoted in part by Josip above, as I mailed him directly) to this mailing list. Apparently they are always deleted by the list's spam filter. :-( Richard -- __ _ |_) /| Richard Atterer | GnuPG key: 888354F7 | \/¯| http://atterer.net | 08A9 7B7D 3D13 3EF2 3D25 D157 79E6 F6DC 8883 54F7 ¯ '` ¯ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 08:19:22PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: Huh? I don't see anything missing in the thread. Do you mean http://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2007/05/msg00235.html Oops - yes, I meant that one! :-o I did check my own spam folder before posting... somehow I missed my own mail or it got lost somewhere else on the way. Sorry for the noise! Richard -- __ _ |_) /| Richard Atterer | GnuPG key: 888354F7 | \/¯| http://atterer.net | 08A9 7B7D 3D13 3EF2 3D25 D157 79E6 F6DC 8883 54F7 ¯ '` ¯ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 02:23:26AM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: This means that we have to copy paste the entries into the webwml/english/CD/vendors.CD file in CVS, *manually* sort the list, This manual sorting bugs me. We should definitely be able to throw new entries at the bottom of the list, and have WML sort them for us. Let's implement the equivalent of mirror/Mirrors.masterlist for CD vendors? I would vote for it, seems to be similar. I seem to recall *some* ancient reason against it, but I can't remember which. Maybe it will popup again. :-) I think it was something about that database import script that relied on current vendors.CD file format, and something about sorting. We can scrap the former because I don't think a separate database is used any more (seeS?), and the latter can be addressed by Denis and other WML hackers should the need arise. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, 31 May 2007 23:41:27 +0200, Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I am not willing to assign my copyright away. I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. And you were committing all this time to the web site which says it's copyright SPI? Unknowingly? The website was obviously wrong. There are probably lots of errors on our web pages, and only some of them I have mtivation to find and correct. You can't get copyright to contributions by assertion. When I got CVS commit rights, no one asked me to assign copyrights. And I commit to a CVS repo, not the web site, I rarely look at the web site, anyway. The fact that the web site generation tools grab my copyrighted content and add incorrect copyright statements arund is indeed a bug, which should be fixed, now that you noticed it. manoj -- I want more life, fucker! Roy Batty, in Ridley Scott's Blade Runner Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:55:26 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. This sort of relicensing should be done at the direction of Debian; we could even write up the license assignment so this was required. Plus, the worst that could happen is the work would become closer to PD; it wouldn't be capable of going backwards in freedom granted. Would such a license be acceptable to you? While my preference is the GPL V2; I would be willing to accept any DFSG free license, if asked. But signing away my rights mean that, in theory, Debian can decide to change the license to something unacceptable (look at documentation the FSF changed from GPL to GFDL, and none of the authors had _any_ say in that). Not assigning copyright helps keep Debian honest. manoj -- I went to the museum where they had all the heads and arms from the statues that are in all the other museums. -- Steven Wright Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
license [was Re: Doubts and Ideas]
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: In any event, to resolve this issue completely While we're at it. Since we obviously have time-related issues with the complete solution :) can someone suggest an alternate phrasing for /license that would not be false? How do we reference webwml committers as a group without the reference being legally invalid? Maybe we could replace the /license page with a script which would pull out the usernames of all the committers for a given source file (via cvs log or so) and print out the real names (via db.d.o, extra variables, etc) together with years of changes. That would have two essential problems: a) revision 1.1 for some files isn't necessarily the original (some were imported), and b) not all revisions necessarily constituted a copyrightable change. Hence, I don't know if it would be worth it for the sake of copyright. It might still be worth it for the sake of simply giving credit. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: While my preference is the GPL V2; I would be willing to accept any DFSG free license, if asked. But signing away my rights mean that, in theory, Debian can decide to change the license to something unacceptable (look at documentation the FSF changed from GPL to GFDL, and none of the authors had _any_ say in that). Not assigning copyright helps keep Debian honest. Sure; the second option doesn't involve copyright assignment, but gives Debian a licence to the work such that it can pick any DFSG Free license subject to approval via GR (or whatever) in the future, in case we need to relicense the webpages. Of course, MIT/Expat is close enough to such a license that it probably doesn't matter. How about the following instead, then: 1) Copyright assignment to SPI using http://ftp.xemacs.org/old-beta/FSF/assign.changes or similar, modified to do the assignment to SPI under the direction of Debian. -or- 2) MIT/Expat license by each contributor. #2 doesn't provide the protection of a copyleft license, but it would enable us to use the work in combination with any other license, so would be ok. Don Armstrong -- You have many years to live--do things you will be proud to remember when you are old. -- Shinka proverb. (John Brunner _Stand On Zanzibar p413) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 06:23:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge. Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented. I meant that thing that makes copyright applicable - a modicum of originality. The vast majority of our web site content is simply not original, because of the nature of the web site, which is to describe the established facts regarding Debian. These facts are pre-existent, and editors mostly can't claim the exclusive right (copyright) on them. There's a handful of essay-like materials where there's significant added value in the text, and the non-content stuff like code and design, but the copyrightability of everything else to the editor of the web site is at least moot. In any event, to resolve this issue completely all that we need is 1) a GPG signed email from every contributor saying that they either assign copyright of their contributions to SPI or give SPI a non-exclusive royalte-free license to do with the copyright work as they see fit 2) a directive from the DPL to SPI to license the work under GPL (or MIT/Expat or whatever -www decides.) #1 should probably be made a part of the proceedure that is followed when you get commit access to the cvs, and #2 is simply a matter of e-mailing leader@ once -www decides which licence. Yeah. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: And considering a lot of other people have infinite more understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we can't find/contact the contributor and/or he/she decides to not relicense it? Is it possible to remove the content and rewrite it free? If for some reason we can't find a contributor (or a contributor has fallen off the face of the planet) we should indicate as such and probably just assume that they meant to give us free reign. If they decide not to license it appropriately, then we should rip whatever it is out of the webpage and rewrite it. I proposed in the bug report the following (in addition to what Don suggested): - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feels he should be contacted and isn't - put a News item in the website explaining that the license change will be introduced in X months and do the same as with the e-mail After X months have gone through, the contributor's GPG emails have been collected, and SPI has been contacted and hold up a meeting clearing the way, change licence.wml as appropiate, add a *new* News item and e-mail d-a again. That way we are acting on good faith and nobody would have a reason to claim that the license change was introduced without they knowing it. We probably should also come up with a set of guidelines for contributors so that we avoid accidentally ending up with work not written by a contributor in the website too. (Or at least, have such work be clearly marked.) Absolutely true. The place for that is www.debian.org/devel/website/guidelines or something similar. Anyone wants to start writting it up? Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:23:44 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote: It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge. Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented. In any event, to resolve this issue completely all that we need is 1) a GPG signed email from every contributor saying that they either assign copyright of their contributions to SPI or give SPI a non-exclusive royalte-free license to do with the copyright work as they see fit 2) a directive from the DPL to SPI to license the work under GPL (or MIT/Expat or whatever -www decides.) I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I am not willing to assign my copyright away. I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. If SPI wants to discuss work-for-hire agreements, they can mail me off list. manoj -- Microbiology Lab: Staph Only! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/31/2007 01:56 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:23:44 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote: It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge. Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented. In any event, to resolve this issue completely all that we need is 1) a GPG signed email from every contributor saying that they either assign copyright of their contributions to SPI or give SPI a non-exclusive royalte-free license to do with the copyright work as they see fit 2) a directive from the DPL to SPI to license the work under GPL (or MIT/Expat or whatever -www decides.) I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; Thank you. but I am not willing to assign my copyright away. Ok, as noted in another message with Don Armstrong, we are probably going with both options, people can either assign copyright of their contributions to SPI or relicense it. :) I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. Would you allow the Debian WWW Team (or a DPL delegate for that matter) to relicense your work under a DFSG compatible license? Or, would you dual-license it GPLv2 and MIT/Expat? That would make our work easier. Anyway, you are a WWW contributor easy to contact to ask for arrangements about licensing issues, so I think we just have to wait a little bit until Don propose the game plan before we start working on this. Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXyqwCjAO0JDlykYRAnciAJ9vJH9zbwCzwcAU/Erz+8t1sKjupQCfUtE4 RFy7C9CLPHHstchPKhXzuXw= =J9ud -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I am not willing to assign my copyright away. I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. And you were committing all this time to the web site which says it's copyright SPI? Unknowingly? -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:06:08 -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Would you allow the Debian WWW Team (or a DPL delegate for that matter) to relicense your work under a DFSG compatible license? Or, would you dual-license it GPLv2 and MIT/Expat? That would make our work easier. I personally would not mind a dual licensing, but I would prefer the GPL. One of the set of pages I have been meaning to add to the vote pages is an HOWTO about using the Debian vote softwareto run other votes; and it would help if I could just use the docs from devotee -- which is GPL'd; and has incorporated other material also distributed under the GPL. In general, allowing people to add docs and other material from software should be encouraged, as long as the software is DFSG free. I belong to the school of thought that divides computer related material into software/hardware/wetware, so as ar as I am concerned, the wml source for the web site is software, just like any other struff I package. Anything DFSG free should be acceptable. manoj -- While most peoples' opinions change, the conviction of their correctness never does. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.golden-gryphon.com/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/31/2007 06:12 PM, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2007 17:06:08 -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Would you allow the Debian WWW Team (or a DPL delegate for that matter) to relicense your work under a DFSG compatible license? Or, would you dual-license it GPLv2 and MIT/Expat? That would make our work easier. I personally would not mind a dual licensing, but I would prefer the GPL. One of the set of pages I have been meaning to add to the vote pages is an HOWTO about using the Debian vote softwareto run other votes; and it would help if I could just use the docs from devotee -- which is GPL'd; and has incorporated other material also distributed under the GPL. In general, allowing people to add docs and other material from software should be encouraged, as long as the software is DFSG free. I belong to the school of thought that divides computer related material into software/hardware/wetware, so as ar as I am concerned, the wml source for the web site is software, just like any other struff I package. Anything DFSG free should be acceptable. manoj Thank you very much Manoj! :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGX4XeCjAO0JDlykYRAumBAKCau9AqCU2q6vptjjcLLGjvG9ndYgCgoG0n onjAFXUU/K2fjiLiP+LZM+I= =d29c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I am willing to relicense my contributions under the GPL v2; but I am not willing to assign my copyright away. Yeah, this is precisely why I think giving an unrestrictive license to SPI acting at the direction of Debian should be an option; some people want to keep their copyrights. [I personally don't care much, so long as at the end of the day, I can do with my work what I wish.] I specifically do not trust the SPI enough to allow them to relicense my work in the future. This sort of relicensing should be done at the direction of Debian; we could even write up the license assignment so this was required. Plus, the worst that could happen is the work would become closer to PD; it wouldn't be capable of going backwards in freedom granted. Would such a license be acceptable to you? Don Armstrong -- It has always been Debian's philosophy in the past to stick to what makes sense, regardless of what crack the rest of the universe is smoking. -- Andrew Suffield in [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/31/2007 07:40 AM, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:58:43PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: And considering a lot of other people have infinite more understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we can't find/contact the contributor and/or he/she decides to not relicense it? Is it possible to remove the content and rewrite it free? If for some reason we can't find a contributor (or a contributor has fallen off the face of the planet) we should indicate as such and probably just assume that they meant to give us free reign. If they decide not to license it appropriately, then we should rip whatever it is out of the webpage and rewrite it. I proposed in the bug report the following (in addition to what Don suggested): - post to d-a that the license is going to change in X months and that contributors are going to be contacted. Provide pointers to anyone feels he should be contacted and isn't - put a News item in the website explaining that the license change will be introduced in X months and do the same as with the e-mail After X months have gone through, the contributor's GPG emails have been collected, and SPI has been contacted and hold up a meeting clearing the way, change licence.wml as appropiate, add a *new* News item and e-mail d-a again. That way we are acting on good faith and nobody would have a reason to claim that the license change was introduced without they knowing it. I would like to suggest that we also have the guidelines (see below) in place before we start collecting the GPG e-mails and advertising the license change, which means, starting it from inside for a couple of weeks. We probably should also come up with a set of guidelines for contributors so that we avoid accidentally ending up with work not written by a contributor in the website too. (Or at least, have such work be clearly marked.) Absolutely true. The place for that is www.debian.org/devel/website/guidelines or something similar. Anyone wants to start writting it up? This is a *very* short draft with some first ideas before start the wml (and also because until the weekend I don't have much free time in my hands). I'm not even sure if that is what Javier and Don had in mind, but I hope it is useful. ;) * Contributions must be DFSG compatible * You can either assign your copyright to SPI or allow the Debian WWW Team to relicense your work under a compatible DFSG license to keep the content of the site consistent. * You don't need to have write access to WWW repository to contribute * Everybody that contributes to the WWW repository must sent a GPG signed mail informing about copyright details and license preferences of the specific piece of information being contributed, it must abide to the above points. * You don't need to be a DD to have write access to the WWW repository * Everybody with write access to the WWW repository must sent a GPG signed mail informing about copyright details and license preferences for all further work identified under the VCS account. * Everybody with write access to the WWW repository must check with patch-providers and other sources of information about the copyright and license information before commit it. * Translations are considered a derived work and we strongly suggest to keep the original license allowing Debian WWW Team to change it for a DFSG compatible license to keep the website consistent. Written/Structured ideas: Our website is a very important part of the Debian Project, it is one of the main interfaces with our users, it contains lots of useful information and references. Considering this, the content of the website is licensed under a DFSG compatible license. There are mainly two ways of contributing to the website, you can either assign your copyright to SPI Inc. or you can license your contributions under $LICENSE_WWW, but we also request that you allow the Web Team to relicense your contributions under a DFSG compatible license when it is necessary. [ Add the information from the Joey page so it can be translated and we can document the procedure to request the access and to confirm that the necessary steps were taken to make sure that the contributions do not violate copyright and create license problems ] If you are a translator, please, be sure to check the rules inside your translation team before start translating a new document. Please, respect the pseudo-header structure in order to keep all the information about Copyright and License traceable. Ok, I was imagining that we should add a Pseudo-Header structure to the webpages, maybe a wml info, to have the
Re: Doubts and Ideas
Hello, with my CD vendor list editor hat on: On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:25:31PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: = About Who's using Debian and CD Vendors = It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take care of those submissions, I think it would help a lot people doing this job to keep track of what was already included and what still needs to be done, the system could even send e-mails to -www-cvs. Having an automatic tool would certainly speed up the time into getting this information into the site. There is already a template, so enforcing it would be simple. Could it be written in PHP/Perl using a sqlite database? Yes, why not. It would not be able to be hosted at www.debian.org, but we could point people to an application at say, submissions.debian.net or submit.debian.org, which would be a standalone server (no mirrors) and take where dynamic applications could be hosted. The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big improvement over the previous state: On http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/adding-form, CD vendors fill out the form, the results are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in a standard format. This means that we have to copy paste the entries into the webwml/english/CD/vendors.CD file in CVS, *manually* sort the list, double-check everything works as expected... Finally, the auto-generated mail needs to be replied to, to inform the vendor about his being added. A CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is necessary to avoid duplication of effort, which increases the amount of mail to be handled by everybody. Wishlist: - entries can be approved for addition to the vendors list with a single click on a web page - sending an email to the submitter is done with another click. Optionally, I can add a comment, e.g. why I'm *not* adding the entry. A default text you have been added is supplied by default - I can leave private comments on why I'm unsure whether to add the entry, only readable by other DDs - I need not periodically poll a web application for new entries, but get a mail e.g. once a day which reminds me that new entries are awaiting approval. IMHO, we should not re-invent the wheel here, but use a standard RT system like bugzilla. You only need to implement the part which takes the supplied information and puts it on the web pages somehow. *BUT* actually I'm not /that/ unhappy with the current system. The number of submissions is usually fairly low, only now, after the release, the is a certain surge of new submissions. Cheers, Richard -- __ _ |_) /| Richard Atterer | GnuPG key: 888354F7 | \/¯| http://atterer.net | 08A9 7B7D 3D13 3EF2 3D25 D157 79E6 F6DC 8883 54F7 ¯ '` ¯ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote: The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big improvement over the previous state: ...the previous state being that a vendor mails assorted bits of information to a mail address, and then a human editor *must* take their input apart weed out the garbage, and rewrite data into WML syntax. That was just painful. It needed to be fixed years ago, but nobody ever got a round tuit. :/ On http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/adding-form, CD vendors fill out the form, the results are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in a standard format. This format is standardized, but not WML. Hey, why didn't anyone tell me that I should do that, it could be done fairly easily :) This means that we have to copy paste the entries into the webwml/english/CD/vendors.CD file in CVS, *manually* sort the list, This manual sorting bugs me. We should definitely be able to throw new entries at the bottom of the list, and have WML sort them for us. Let's implement the equivalent of mirror/Mirrors.masterlist for CD vendors? I seem to recall *some* ancient reason against it, but I can't remember which. double-check everything works as expected... Finally, the auto-generated mail needs to be replied to, to inform the vendor about his being added. A CC to [EMAIL PROTECTED] is necessary to avoid duplication of effort, which increases the amount of mail to be handled by everybody. These steps are hard to avoid even if you implement a full-blown script+database handler... you'd still have to read and check all submissions, generate a reply (at that time when you add them), and somehow 'lock' submissions to avoid race conditions with other editors. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: About a redesign I think that should be done, from time to time, using proper CSS, to show people that the Web Team is alive and working. I'm not saying to put flash or any not *very* accessible material, Im just saying that from time to time (2-3 years) we could re-arrange our CSS (and maybe layout) so people could come and say: COOL! Debian keeps surprising me!. Just changing the colors (even nuances) or a couple of visual bits and pieces, would be good. For quite some time, Im really unsure if we should use br / or br, if we should use a quote () or q, if we should check new pages when they come in and review it (even before translators work on it). I don't think we should ever be worrying about br/ vs br, or similar formatting issues. WML *exists* for the purpose of abstracting those kinds of details out of the editor's view. The new q thing is a good idea, it should have been done long ago (also through WML, but this method with CSS is okay today). I'm unsure if we should start contacting contributors and fix the long standing license problem of the website. What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been. I really think that we need to first change a couple of core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can work on the logical and structural areas of the website. I think that logical and structural discussion is more important than formatting. Even visual design issues are by now more important than whether we pass this or that syntax validator :/ -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:08:25PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: I'm unsure if we should start contacting contributors and fix the long standing license problem of the website. What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been. I'm suprised you ask this. Have you read 238245? Several problems: - The website claims the Copyright belongs to SPI even if no contributor, AFAIK, is asked a paper signed email to transfer copyright before they start contributing. We should change this and start collecting (c) transfers from (at least) current and future contributors. As per the discussion in #238245, since this has not been done the content is not legally licensed by SPI. - Debian-legal says that the website license (OPL) not DFSG-free (see http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040312.160816.9f618d1f.html) and it certainly is not GPL compatible. See #238245 and #388141 as I stated in my email. This means no content from the site can (legally) be copied over to, for example, a GPL-licensed document (such as those produced by the DDP) or a GPL program. Does this happen often? I couldn't say, but for example, I've recently seen reportbug-ng reuse the exact same content from the website for it's UI interface (which is GPLD). I'm not sure reportbug-ng's author is aware of him violating a license. I proposed a plan to fix this issue (see the bug report). But did not have the energy to pursue it further. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 10:25:31PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: - Our procedure for out-of-date pages is this, the log of removed pages is here. That would be nice, actually, an automatic mechanism that would mail the l10n mailings everytime a batch of pages are removed could prompt translation teams into action. We have pages that reports what is out of date and AFAIK when a page is 6 months out-of-date they are removed, if I'm not wrong, peterk is taking care of this, he also has a report page where it shows the stats. There's a very big difference between a 'pull' model (I have to remember to periodically review the pages and take action) vs. the 'push' model (you are reminded something is going to happen unless you fix it. Even though the timeframe for the removal is rather large (6 months) it would be a nice addition to that service to have the actions e-mail to translators' lists before they are taken (and content is removed from the website). Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: This means no content from the site can (legally) be copied over to, for example, a GPL-licensed document (such as those produced by the DDP) or a GPL program. For reference, this is #192748 (which was cloned to 238245). Licensing the www content using the GPL would obviously fix both bugs. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been. I'm suprised you ask this. Have you read 238245? Obviously not :) Several problems: - The website claims the Copyright belongs to SPI even if no contributor, AFAIK, is asked a paper signed email to transfer copyright before they start contributing. We should change this and start collecting (c) transfers from (at least) current and future contributors. As per the discussion in #238245, since this has not been done the content is not legally licensed by SPI. Er, I think this is a false dilemma. People who were committing have always been committing to the same place where license.wml said SPI, and it said OPL. Granted, without explicit relinquishments, it may not be SPI's in the strictest possible sense, but I doubt that we couldn't argue so in court, if someone ever contested that. This wasn't us having people click-through a EULA, these were completely willful acts of asking for access, accepting the rules, and only then committing changes. - Debian-legal says that the website license (OPL) not DFSG-free (see http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040312.160816.9f618d1f.html) This is the same thing as with the logo licenses... in reality, nobody cares, because the web site isn't part of the Debian system. This means no content from the site can (legally) be copied over to, for example, a GPL-licensed document (such as those produced by the DDP) or a GPL program. Does this happen often? I couldn't say, It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge. All this license nitpicking in Debian really tends to get annoying to me... We could actually go about whining at people adding stuff to the web site without proper references to whatever is the primary source! -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña: Even though the timeframe for the removal is rather large (6 months) it would be a nice addition to that service to have the actions e-mail to translators' lists before they are taken (and content is removed from the website). Currently, the only mail produced is the one that is sent to my by cron running the update script. Perhaps it should also post the results somewhere, although they do get posted to debian-www-cvs as all other cvs activities (but they may of course drown there). -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote: - Debian-legal says that the website license (OPL) not DFSG-free (see http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20040312.160816.9f618d1f.html) This is the same thing as with the logo licenses... in reality, nobody cares, because the web site isn't part of the Debian system. Meanwhile, in real reality, people keep putting it into debian packages - directly, or indirectly through wallpapers and artwork and so on - because they expect debian project materials to be under licences accepted in the debian system; and it hinders us fixing other licensing bugs because it is used (incorrectly) in accusations of hypocrisy. We should care about this as a way to avoid a whole class of bugs and help with fixing another class, so spending less time on bloody licensing bugs. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 11:03 AM, Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:00:38PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote: The current system was implemented by Josip recently, and is a big improvement over the previous state: ...the previous state being that a vendor mails assorted bits of information to a mail address, and then a human editor *must* take their input apart weed out the garbage, and rewrite data into WML syntax. That was just painful. It needed to be fixed years ago, but nobody ever got a round tuit. :/ On http://www.debian.org/CD/vendors/adding-form, CD vendors fill out the form, the results are sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] in a standard format. This format is standardized, but not WML. Hey, why didn't anyone tell me that I should do that, it could be done fairly easily :) This means that we have to copy paste the entries into the webwml/english/CD/vendors.CD file in CVS, *manually* sort the list, This manual sorting bugs me. We should definitely be able to throw new entries at the bottom of the list, and have WML sort them for us. Let's implement the equivalent of mirror/Mirrors.masterlist for CD vendors? I would vote for it, seems to be similar. I seem to recall *some* ancient reason against it, but I can't remember which. Maybe it will popup again. :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXlvOCjAO0JDlykYRAmp2AKC/3/hBUZkuyKrIFPKSyyeUdRHFZgCdGeN6 doMT6v0vWvZxw6oYgkd7j2M= =C88r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 05:51 PM, Peter Karlsson wrote: Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña: Even though the timeframe for the removal is rather large (6 months) it would be a nice addition to that service to have the actions e-mail to translators' lists before they are taken (and content is removed from the website). Currently, the only mail produced is the one that is sent to my by cron running the update script. Perhaps it should also post the results somewhere, although they do get posted to debian-www-cvs as all other cvs activities (but they may of course drown there). We could integrate it to i18n.debian.net. We have the translation_maintainer fields and databases, we should mail the maintainers and if no maintainer is specified the translations team mail list, ultimately the -i18n or -www could be used it a team mail list could not be found. What do you think? I can provide ssh access to a trust GPG key (keyring.debian.org works) for the server. We could implement that as part of the i18n infrastructure (and future plans to have centralized translations resources/informations). Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXlx6CjAO0JDlykYRAltfAKC7BlSFX+CIh3CP2KjkTLkT844FYgCdFBSW YQ58LaszHBCYt4UlK1vGzDo= =UKXT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 11:08 AM, Josip Rodin wrote: On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: About a redesign I think that should be done, from time to time, using proper CSS, to show people that the Web Team is alive and working. I'm not saying to put flash or any not *very* accessible material, Im just saying that from time to time (2-3 years) we could re-arrange our CSS (and maybe layout) so people could come and say: COOL! Debian keeps surprising me!. Just changing the colors (even nuances) or a couple of visual bits and pieces, would be good. Definetely. And I would like to have that as a goal. :) For quite some time, Im really unsure if we should use br / or br, if we should use a quote () or q, if we should check new pages when they come in and review it (even before translators work on it). I don't think we should ever be worrying about br/ vs br, or similar formatting issues. WML *exists* for the purpose of abstracting those kinds of details out of the editor's view. The new q thing is a good idea, it should have been done long ago (also through WML, but this method with CSS is okay today). Ok, one way or the other we should find a common definition and push that, right now we have 4 or 5 different types for the same tag, that won't help. :-( So, if WML is the way to go, let's create a definition for break lines and start patching our beloved website, if we can handle that automatically even better for translators, if webmaster agree, we can start that perhaps during DebCamp. ;) I really think that we need to first change a couple of core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can work on the logical and structural areas of the website. I think that logical and structural discussion is more important than formatting. Even visual design issues are by now more important than whether we pass this or that syntax validator :/ Really, I'm not worried about the validator, my focus here it to make easier to use a few tricks when the logical and structural changes come to the scene. Some changes needs to have a 100% compatible (X)HTML code, which means that we need to fix the underlayer and we can do that while preparing the next steps. I'm not giving up on one thing to the other, I'm just lining them up to get them easier each step we take forward. Cleaning the website, taking decisions about the standards we are going to use and goals we want to achieve, could make it easier to the logical and structural changes once they come. Honestly, what I'm looking right now is to improve our code structure and our goals so we can have new code flowing in with the expected syntax. I'm also working on the proposed logical/structural changes, but that takes a little bit more time. Having a code syntax and a common goal would make it easier for some of the people that I have been bothering to help me with the logical/structural changes, right now I can't say them we are using XHTML or HTML or $whatever. I'm really not nitpicking about formatting or validators, this is really part of a bigger plan. :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXl9vCjAO0JDlykYRAlP8AJ4o3gV5e3v+GY5o2GSNTinGJPlK/QCgkaYP oqeS41moEKPvja1nbzr5Q98= =nDif -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 10:23 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote: It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't prior art, or simply common knowledge. Prior art isn't an issue, since it's not patented. In any event, to resolve this issue completely all that we need is 1) a GPG signed email from every contributor saying that they either assign copyright of their contributions to SPI or give SPI a non-exclusive royalte-free license to do with the copyright work as they see fit 2) a directive from the DPL to SPI to license the work under GPL (or MIT/Expat or whatever -www decides.) #1 should probably be made a part of the proceedure that is followed when you get commit access to the cvs, and #2 is simply a matter of e-mailing leader@ once -www decides which licence. I remember that some people complained about given their copyright to SPI (or $whoever), I think we should go with both options, I'm only afraid about having material licensed under incompatible licenses (could that happen?). I don't think we should have an endless discussion about something that would be extremely hard to happen, in my opinion, MIT/Expat seems to be a good license for the website and I would vote for that one. The legal verbiage for #1 we can just borrow from the FSF; if there aren't any serious objections I could even embark on getting these messages from contributors. Don, I volunteer to help you. I can help with the Brazilian contributors, we are going to need to also ask help of other translations team. And considering a lot of other people have infinite more understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we can't find/contact the contributor and/or he/she decides to not relicense it? Is it possible to remove the content and rewrite it free? Don Armstrong Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXmE8CjAO0JDlykYRAk+VAJ9P3qaeW7gpJKn+UNh3EntTeNExUgCfQiVn /dFE3+Wcr7bjaDfwF58MKRo= =mIhP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: I remember that some people complained about given their copyright to SPI (or $whoever), I think we should go with both options, I'm only afraid about having material licensed under incompatible licenses (could that happen?). We'd either want them to give the copyright to SPI or license SPI such that SPI can sublicense under any other license. That way we won't have to ever worry about licensing issues again; if we decide in the future that license X is the way to go, we get SPI to license it that way, and we're good to go. I don't think we should have an endless discussion about something that would be extremely hard to happen, in my opinion, MIT/Expat seems to be a good license for the website and I would vote for that one. Yeah; my personal opinion is MIT/Expat or GPL. I don't really care which we choose. [And if we do what I suggest above, we can always change later.] Don, I volunteer to help you. I can help with the Brazilian contributors, we are going to need to also ask help of other translations team. Thanks! Let me try to steal some verbiage here and come up with a game plan. And considering a lot of other people have infinite more understading of Copyright issues, what should we do if we can't find/contact the contributor and/or he/she decides to not relicense it? Is it possible to remove the content and rewrite it free? If for some reason we can't find a contributor (or a contributor has fallen off the face of the planet) we should indicate as such and probably just assume that they meant to give us free reign. If they decide not to license it appropriately, then we should rip whatever it is out of the webpage and rewrite it. We probably should also come up with a set of guidelines for contributors so that we avoid accidentally ending up with work not written by a contributor in the website too. (Or at least, have such work be clearly marked.) Don Armstrong -- I'd never hurt another living thing. But if I did... It would be you. -- Chris Bishop http://www.chrisbishop.com/her/archives/her69.html http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: I would like to know if we have a Web Policy or if we should have one, some small lines, nothing complicate, just to say: There's no Policy AFAIK, just the documentation at www.debian.org/devel/website/ - Our procedure for out-of-date pages is this, the log of removed pages is here. That would be nice, actually, an automatic mechanism that would mail the l10n mailings everytime a batch of pages are removed could prompt translation teams into action. - We have a translation robot that is working this way No, there's none specific for the web page. = About Who's using Debian and CD Vendors = It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take care of those submissions, I think it would help a lot people doing this job to keep track of what was already included and what still needs to be done, the system could even send e-mails to -www-cvs. Having an automatic tool would certainly speed up the time into getting this information into the site. There is already a template, so enforcing it would be simple. Could it be written in PHP/Perl using a sqlite database? Yes, why not. It would not be able to be hosted at www.debian.org, but we could point people to an application at say, submissions.debian.net or submit.debian.org, which would be a standalone server (no mirrors) and take where dynamic applications could be hosted. I really think that we need to first change a couple of core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can work on the logical and structural areas of the website. IMHO, it is a long term goal for at least 6 months of improving the underlayer until we can easier change our web face. :-) I think we should first fix #238245 and #388141 (and for those who push to the use of the wiki, #385797 too) Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 05/29/2007 08:05 PM, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 06:20:40PM -0300, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) wrote: I would like to know if we have a Web Policy or if we should have one, some small lines, nothing complicate, just to say: There's no Policy AFAIK, just the documentation at www.debian.org/devel/website/ Ok. Just to be sure. :-) - Our procedure for out-of-date pages is this, the log of removed pages is here. That would be nice, actually, an automatic mechanism that would mail the l10n mailings everytime a batch of pages are removed could prompt translation teams into action. We have pages that reports what is out of date and AFAIK when a page is 6 months out-of-date they are removed, if I'm not wrong, peterk is taking care of this, he also has a report page where it shows the stats. - We have a translation robot that is working this way No, there's none specific for the web page. Ok. But I know there is infrastructure for that. :) = About Who's using Debian and CD Vendors = It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take care of those submissions, I think it would help a lot people doing this job to keep track of what was already included and what still needs to be done, the system could even send e-mails to -www-cvs. Having an automatic tool would certainly speed up the time into getting this information into the site. There is already a template, so enforcing it would be simple. Could it be written in PHP/Perl using a sqlite database? Yes, why not. It would not be able to be hosted at www.debian.org, but we could point people to an application at say, submissions.debian.net or submit.debian.org, which would be a standalone server (no mirrors) and take where dynamic applications could be hosted. Nice. I would like to also hear from the people more involved in CDs and Who's using Debian submission. If they think it could be helpful. ;) I really think that we need to first change a couple of core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can work on the logical and structural areas of the website. IMHO, it is a long term goal for at least 6 months of improving the underlayer until we can easier change our web face. :-) I think we should first fix #238245 and #388141 (and for those who push to the use of the wiki, #385797 too) Ok. That's too. But I was speaking about the changes that we are able to do on the structure of our website right now (lower case tags, close them, change to XHTML, prepare to CSS Aural). That's something we definetely can do without much trouble. I'm going to wait a little bit more and if nobody complaing about this, I will start preparing patches so we can discuss and commit them. We should also check the automated scripts adding news, security and other info to made them compatible with our format (probably we should aim at XHTML). I'm would like to help with the License problems, I will start collecting the permissions from the Brazilian Portuguese Translators, but I think we should find a license first and I know this is a delicated subject. I'm in favor to also use a well established license, on debian-legal GPL and MIT are usually the recommended ones. My question would be: should we vote for the desired license via GR and start collecting permission from authors and contributors and prepare ourselves to rewrite/remove everything that is not licensed or permitted? Or should we start contacting authors and asking them to relicense their contributions under DFSG-compatible licenses (given them options of compatible licenses between each other?). And finally, when a new account is given, should we ask people to gpg-sign something in agreement to provide only DFSG-free content under the license we choosed? Regards Javier Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXNKLCjAO0JDlykYRAtuCAJ41hKoCVTFagZaQ8UTHLfxX7jxmogCgnvLa fzDHslBhDGI7QBWAJCg6WlM= =brFm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Doubts and Ideas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hey -www! :-) Since long time I have this draft sitting on my MUA and as I'm always trying to improve the text and collect all the bits it is remaining here. Originally it was a reply to one of the mockup threads, I decided to write a new mail based on the recent event and on the constantly quoted website on all sorts of threads. Ok, while we are at it, please let me try to solve some long-standing personal doubts, because I would like to help more with our website. I'm working in the website for a few years now, and I really have some doubts about bugs and procedures and some ideas that I should had shared before (sorry about that). About a redesign I think that should be done, from time to time, using proper CSS, to show people that the Web Team is alive and working. I'm not saying to put flash or any not *very* accessible material, Im just saying that from time to time (2-3 years) we could re-arrange our CSS (and maybe layout) so people could come and say: COOL! Debian keeps surprising me!. I'm not saying that our website is not very good, I really like it because the huge amount of information, number of translations and accessibility (text browsers and our concerns with standards -- W3C, (X)HTML, CSS). But from what I've seen in the last months, we have been maintaining the website more then developing and improving it. Even if we are not exactly a Web Team right now, I think that if we keep the good work started by Jutta and others, we are able to create space for more contributions. == About XHTML, CSS and related stuff == For quite some time, Im really unsure if we should use br / or br, if we should use a quote () or q, if we should check new pages when they come in and review it (even before translators work on it). I don't know if XHTML 1.1 or 2.0 is our long term goal, or if is our goal at all. I'm unsure if we should start contacting contributors and fix the long standing license problem of the website. I would like to know if we have a Web Policy or if we should have one, some small lines, nothing complicate, just to say: Hey, welcome to webwml, please check this recommendations before your first commit and enjoy! Thanks for your contributions! - Our target is to have full XHTML support by Lenny. - We are aiming to have CSS-aural by Lenny+1. - Our procedure for out-of-date pages is this, the log of removed pages is here. - We have a translation robot that is working this way - To add a new CSS discuss that on debian-www I really think that we can work together with the release cycle (imagining that it would take 18-24 -- x2 would mean 36-48 months), to have visual changes in the website, or to have milestones being achieved. Portuguese is someway behind in translations, so I'm checking a lot of original documents, while I'm at this I see a lot of things, specially wrong tags and unclosed ones, I would like to know if we can start commiting changes to fix whole pages, not sure if we can do that with smart_change, but I can try. = About Who's using Debian and CD Vendors = It would be possible to have a very minimal system to take care of those submissions, I think it would help a lot people doing this job to keep track of what was already included and what still needs to be done, the system could even send e-mails to -www-cvs. Could it be written in PHP/Perl using a sqlite database? NOTE: I wrote this a while ago, but it seems that it is now handle by Request Tracker or other way, not sure, my main idea was to remove it from the list and make it something like RT, so we can track what is pending and what is not pending. These are first ideas, I would like to hear from people that are also contributing to the webwml, once we can have some feedback on this issue, I'm volunteering myself to start working on the english pages, probably by section in order to have weekly changes and aiming to achieve a point where we can easily handle graphical/visual changes. I really think that we need to first change a couple of core structures in the (X)HTML code and CSS and after we can work on the logical and structural areas of the website. IMHO, it is a long term goal for at least 6 months of improving the underlayer until we can easier change our web face. :-) Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGWfYoCjAO0JDlykYRAlhbAKCs3KpSzLapbRIi+lf0r/D+Fu6PbgCcDZH4 V3ep2zd3tc44F9NaDOxaiqk= =I4Hl -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To
