Dear all, a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus.
1) The copyright attributions. The inventory of copyright notices that we distribute together with our packages is checked at the first upload only. At this step already, some packages with incomplete lists are accepted. For other packages, new copyright notices added upstream during updates are missed and the Debian copyright file is not updated. As a result, for the purpose of having an exhaustive listing of all the copyright notices present in the Debian source packages, the debian/copyright files are not a reliable source of information. I do not think that we have the manpower, nor perhaps the will, to do this inventory with the same aim of perfection as we have for other matters like security or stability for instance. Since not all license require to reproduce the copyright notices in the documentation of our binary packages, I propose to give up this self-imposed requirement, and simply focus on respecting the licenses. I have considered whether doing so would increase the work load of our archive administrators. I have some experience of NEW package inspection (http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview). In my experience, the debian/copyright file is not an aid to the reviewing task, since the very goal of this task is to check if nothing has been omitted or incorrectly copied. The license of the redistributed files have to be inspected anyway, and at this moment it is usually clear whether the license has some clauses about the reproduction of copyright notices. 2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources. Some upstream archives contain files that are not free according to the DFSG, but that can be omitted without affecting the programs distributed in our binary packages. Typical examples include non-free RFCs, sourceless PDFs, GFDL documentation, copies of scientific articles licensed with a clause prohibiting commercial use, or builds of the program for MS-Windows. Repacking the upstream sources to remove such non-free files does not provide any additional freedom. Among the disadvantages of repacking, there is the work overhead for the packager, and the loss of transparency for our users as we do not distribute a bit-wise identical source archive as upstream anymore. Among the advantages, our users know that if they download our source packages, there is non-DFSG-free file in. I think that this advantage is not as big as we think. Since we allow licenses with an advertisement clause and licenses that forbid to reuse the same program name for derived works, our users have to check the license of our packages in any case and can not blindly redistribute modified versions without checking for the above two points. So the presence of legally redistributable files that do not satisfy the DFSG in our source package would not change our user experience, especially that the target is files that can be ignored. Most importantly, none of these files would be distributed in binary packages anyway. According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can be said that they are not part of the Debian system. Therefore, despite what I propose is a big change from our traditions, I do not think that it is a change that contradicts our foundation documents. Draft of the GR --------------- I propose three motions that can be seconded separately. The first implements the point 1), the second points 1) and 2). Given that point 2) is likely to be far more controversial than 1), I do not think that there is a need for a motion that addresses 2) but not 1). Lastly, remembering the bitter experience of the two GRs of 2008, I propose a third amendment to strongly reject the GR and blame for having submitted it, in case I strongly misunderstood the situation and harmed the project with this GR. Also, it allows the ‘further discussion’ default option to really mean that more discussion is needed. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan General resolution: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages. Motion A: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but not necessary. Motion B: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but not necessary. The Debian source packages can contain files that are not free according to our guidelines, provided that they are not used to build nor distributed in the binary packages that constitute the Debian system. Motion C: The general resolution “Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.” is rejected and should not have been proposed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
