Hello again everybody,
I did not have much time recently, so here is a summary email that tries to answer in a single message all comments that I received in public or private. 1) About the exhaustive reproduction of all copyright notices. I have the feeling that there is a consensus that we do not need to do what laws and licenses are not commanding, but unless votes are counted with a GR, this is only my feeeling and nothing else. I think that a GR is the right instrument to check the consensus over big changes, and that the relaxation of our policy of documenting all copyright notices is a big change. A GR that is accepted by a large majority is not necessarly a waste of time, because it dissipates misunderstantings that can arise with tacite agreements. But yes, there are alternatives, like electing a DPL that supports this change in his platform. The proposition that I make is deliberatly not a Policy change. First of all, it would introduce diffcult debates whether it can be edited later without another GR. Second, I do not propose to replace the definition of debian/copyright. In particular, this GR says nothing about other contents of this file such as the URL to the sources. Rather, if accepted this GR would be the green light for a Policy change. 2) About the source of the Debian system. I would like to take the opportunity of this message to make a clarification on what I wrote about ignoring the DFSG (http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20100125010005.gf13...@kunpuu.plessy.org). The DFSG are guidelines, and it is our social contract that tells us when to follow them. We must not ignore them in these situations. What I am arguing is that some files that are in the orig.tar files distributed in the source packages of the Debian system are not part of the source of the system, and that for them the DFSG do not apply. This is what I meant when I answered yes to MJ Ray when he asked me if I proposed to ignore the DFSG. Similarly, I do not think that it violates the title of the point one of our social contract (“Debian will remain 100% free”). The Debian project maintains and distributes non-free packages, so I conclude that the title – concise by nature – is about the Debian system, and not about everything made by the Debian project. Maybe it is because I am a biologist, but for me ‘Debian system’ means something functional, something that one can run to operate a machine. Without its sources, that system is not free. But the collection files distributed in our source packages do not define what the Debian system is: some ‘convenience copies’ of software libraries are ignored and we do not provide support for them ; they are not part of the Debian system. Moreover the possession of only the sources is not is enough for making and using a free system: one can not do anything with an empty computer and the sources alone. For me, it is the combination of the binary programs and their source that make a free operating system and define its boundaries. If on the medium that contains the system's sources there are other files that have no function in the system, then it is my point of view that they are not part of it. 3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together with the source of the Debian system ? There are clear benefits. Firstly, would allow to use a bit-identical source material as distributyed upstream. In the future, it would allow to distribute source packages based on repository clones that contain freely redistributable non-DFSG-free material, without having to engage in complex extirpations over the entire repository's history (since we would still be distributing the files after deleting them from the head). There is also a time benefit. Repacing a package is less than one hour of work, but multiply it by many packages, and it becomes a significant amount of time. Lastly, it is not fun, and having fun is a very important motivation in volunteer work. Doing boring, repetitive and not fun work leads people to make errors, which waste other people's time even is they are as minor as forgetting to add a mangle rule to debian/watch in order to take the ~dfsg suffix of the Debian upstream version. Here is a revised version of the GR proposal (still unsigned to underline that it is still a draft), that I hope clarifies point 2) 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. In order to distribute bit-identical source material as downlowaded from the upstream distributors, 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. These files are not part of the Debian system and in contrast with the non-free works defined in the point 5 of our Social Contract, their use is not supported. 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 debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org