René van Bevern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I second this proposal independently of the presence of the D clause, > although I prefer it being not removed.
Same for me; with or without "are" Regards, Frank > > Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. >> >> As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days >> at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to >> corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will >> do so immediately at my return. >> >> >> ====================================================================== >> >> The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works >> that they use on their computer; about giving users the same >> information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As >> such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the >> availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright >> holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. >> This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack >> of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright >> holders. >> >> Different types of works have different forms of source. For some >> works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be >> digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was >> preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no >> longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent >> possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical >> aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running >> upon ones computer. >> >> Recognizing this, the Debian Project: >> >> A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian >> system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of >> whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary >> processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, >> works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream >> developer would actually use for modification. >> >> B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute >> the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would >> actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed >> in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be >> made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project >> resources. >> >> C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or >> software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose >> source is not available by making such works available in >> non-free and providing project resources to the extent that >> Debian is capable of doing so. >> >> D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is >> not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for >> modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can >> exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their >> hardware. >> >> >> 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio >> recordings. >> >> 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to "technically possible" >> or "possible for some party" as opposed to "legally possible for >> Debian". We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to >> require the distribution of physical objects. >> >> ======================================================================= >> >> >> Obvious points for discussion: >> >> 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of >> installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free >> firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i >> land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's >> trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're >> installing/using/distributing is Free Software. >> >> 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is >> going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the >> orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and >> it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. >> However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make >> them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even >> if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in >> the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] >> >> 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; >> however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a >> hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their >> computers. >> >> 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to >> compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, >> we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the >> purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 >> requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a >> position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing >> to have from our users and our perspective. -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
pgpHgm25o7zAm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
