On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 01:01:10PM -0700, Ian Kelling wrote: > > Nicolás A. Ortega <[email protected]> writes: > > > I've had this discussion in the Parabola Dev mailing list before, > > however it did not gain much attention (due to a bunch of factors that > > were going on at the time) and I also believe this is something that > > would be more effective if done by a larger community such as this one, > > where many of us are the same people involved in these Libre GNU/Linux > > distros. > > > > During the huge debate there was over Chromium and whether or not it is > > free, and Qt5 Webengine falling along with it, I was disturbed to see a > > few issues with the entire ordeal. Firstly: information was not being > > concentrated in a central location where everyone could see it, instead > > you had to read through tens of e-mails from the mailing lists (Parabola > > ones alone, I bet it would be hundreds if we're talking about other > > communities as well) just to start to find what people are talking > > about; secondly: there was hardly anyone looking into the validity of > > these claims, but rather people immediately started to think about how > > to deal with programs that depended on Chromium (like qt5-webengine) > > despite there being no concrete evidence of any sort; thirdly: the > > entire process has been going on for *way* too long, and certain > > essential packages (like qt5-webengine) are still on blacklists with no > > evidence incriminating them. Therefore, some time ago, on the Parabola > > Dev mailing list, I proposed a Quarantine Policy that could be put in > > place to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen. It would be nice > > to see this done by all libre projects together collectively. So I will > > post in this e-mail a draft I came up with way back when: > > > > 1. When a package is suspected of being non-free in any way or form some > > superficial evidence should be provided, if not then the suspicion > > should be lifted as there is not even the most minimal amount of > > evidence. If there is, then we continue. > > > > 2. The packages in question should be put under quarantine. That is, > > temporarily removed from the repos of our libre distros. At this point > > an entry on some wiki (or even an etherpad) should be made where > > *absolutely all evidence* should be posted. What's more, only evidence > > posted in this place should be considered in order to encourage its use. > > > > 3. If after X amount of time (I think a month should do) no concrete > > evidence has been found (that is, pointing to the actual files/code or > > part of the project that is non-free where absolutely everyone can see > > it for themselves without a need to rely on other people's judgement) > > then the package should be removed from quarantine. If concrete evidence > > has at any point been found then it should be kept blacklisted and > > upstream should be notified of the problem *immediately*. > > > > 4. If the package has been released from quarantine and new evidence > > arises then we move back to step 1. If this reoccurs several times then > > it may be necessary to increase the amount of time in quarantine. > > > > Changes to this process are welcome, but I don't like seeing things > > being blacklisted for absolutely no reason, and I don't like that we're > > all running around like headless chickens on this kind of issue. We need > > to be organized, and organization among large groups will require some > > kind of policy. > > > I think is up to each distro to decide if they want a policy like this > and what it is. I wouldn't choose this one; fsf affords the free distros > the leeway to make mistakes with respect to licensing as long as they > promptly correct them and I think the distros can afford the same leeway > to upstream developers if the circumstance calls for it. > > It sounds like a comprehensive summary needs to be made for > qt5-webengine. Again, it's up to the distros on whether to mandate a > place for this or not. Some people will be more comfortable using a > mailing list. If you want to use a wiki, the talk page of an entry on > the free software directory is a good place I have used it in the past > to document licensing issues. >
I suppose the 'Quarantine' part of it is a bit more Parabola specific, probably should've set that aside. In general what I thought would be more important as a collaborative effort is actually looking into these licensing issues. All libre distros are affected when a package is labelled as non-free, and although you are right that it should be up to each one how they handle the package itself, I would say that the situation it creates is much larger, and having more eyes from multiple distros would most definitely help than each of us redoing the same work. It's a question of efficiency, in my opinion. -- Nicolás Ortega Froysa (Deathsbreed) https://themusicinnoise.net/ http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/ Public PGP Key: https://themusicinnoise.net/[email protected]_pub.asc http://uk7ewohr7xpjuaca.onion/[email protected]_pub.asc
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ libreplanet-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
