Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Osamu Aoki]

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
Control: tags -1 + wontfix
thanks

This is about https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686481

I have made major update of debian-reference (DR) in 2012 and 2022 to address
this bug report concerns and non-free-firmware. I realized this old bug is still
around for my package.  Let me reassess this bug.

The title of this bug by "SirGrant" is misleading at least for the current DR. 
DR doesn't instruct *instruct* user to install non-free software.  DR only
provides  information on how to install non-free software.

Moreover, current DR explicitly mention in "2.1.6. Debian is 100% free software"
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_debian_is_100_free_software
as:

   Users should be aware of the risks of using packages in the non-free, 
non-free-
   firmware and contrib areas:
   
   * lack of freedom for such software packages
   * lack of support from Debian on such software packages (Debian can't 
 support software properly without having access to its source code.)
   * contamination of your 100% free Debian system

So I think I am respectful for people not wishing to get close to non-free.

My message was a bit ambiguous in
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686481#20 .

What I meant was I am happy to accept practical path for technical measures on
DR (not Debian Policy) which enable to keep quiet on even mentioning non-free in
DR as an optional build feature for particular distribution.  After 10+ years,
no productive proposal nor discussion has happened on this direction.

Also, in light of Debian CD including non-free-firmware these days, I think that
the level of *mention* in DR is appropriate.  So I can close this bug but for
avoiding future repeat of this discussion, I decided to keep this bug but with
changing this bug tag from moreinfo to wontfix.

Regards,

Osamu

PS: I am CCing people who participated on this bug.  I intentinally excluded
list address.

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> For example, if package build environment has pre-defined and agreed
> environment variable such as:
> 
> DERIVATIVE=(undefined) # debian build
> DERIVATIVE=debian  # debian build
> DERIVATIVE=ubuntu  # ubuntu build
> DERIVATIVE=trisquel# trisquel build
> 
> Then I can accept patch to skip including some parts of document for
> trisquel build.  Even Debian policy document can emmbed such change as
> long as document title changed to "trisquel policy" at the same time.

Well, at that point you'd probably need to also change the name of at least
the binary package from debian-policy to $(DERIVATIVE)-policy, or it will
cause confusion to users down the road...

> Of course, I like to get patch for it :-) (Nah I can do it as long
> as technical scheme is worked out.)

I'd be worried about packages named debian-policy hitting the web with
something that is not the Debian policy inside.

Maybe it is better to tell them to fork and rename debian-policy to
$(DERIVATIVE)-policy?  IMHO, it doesn't make much sense for the derivatives
to go through Debian to update a package with their own policy, anyway.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install, non-free software

[Grant H.]

Andrei,

Thanks for your post too.  That is how I understood Stefano's post.
Hence, why I stated "It is up to the package maintainer on how to
proceed."

Osamu,

Sorry if I made you feel as though you were violating the DPL.  That is
not the intention.  The specific comment which lead to the reporting of
this bug was mentioned by Andrei.  You can find it in the first
paragraph of Zak's email[2] which states:

"I think we should either get Debian in FSF [free-distros list][1], or
document (from our POV) why Debian is not there. I'm looking for Debian
volunteers interested in the topic and willing to participate in a joint
Debian / FSF team that will work toward that goal without prejudices.
The ideal outcome is an agreed upon list of Debian "bugs" that need to
be solved, according to the usual Debian mechanisms, and with no special
treatment due to their "political" origin"

then in the "Next steps" section it states:

"If we want to advance on this topic --- and I think we should, for the
reasons mentioned above --- the needed exercise is to work with the FSF
to review the issues they claim apply to Debian. It will essentially be
a bug triaging exercise. Some of the bugs will be valid, some of them
will be not, and on some there will be disagreement between submitter
and "maintainer"." [Continues on...]

Also as far as what Trisquel is.  Trisquel is a Ubuntu derivative
endorsed by the GNU project, we are downstream of Debian.  We do
sometimes report freedom bugs we find upstream[1] if they apply to
Debian as well.  We will always fix the issue downstream if need be but
we prefer to get it fixed in Debian ideally because then in our opinion
many other distros benefit.

[1]http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/bts-usertags.cgi?tag=trisquel&user=trisquel%40trisquel.info
[2]http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
-- 
*Grant H.
*Email: sirgr...@member.fsf.org
*Ask me for my GPG key
*I'm an FSF member -- Help us support software freedom!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Andrei POPESCU]

On Lu, 03 sep 12, 22:14:44, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > 
> > I am reporting this bug because Stefano Zacchiroli has called for a
> > "free-ness assessment" [2].  It is up to the package maintainer on how to
> > proceed.
> 
> So you are making me feel I am doing something DPL does not approve...
> But I can not find which specific comment of Zak provides such rationale
> for this strange bug report.  Please state it clearly.  Otherwise, I
> will close this bug report very soon.

Hmm, my reading of this is: file the bugs, however, the maintainer still 
has the final word on severity and/or status (fix, wontfix, etc.) as per 
normal Debian Way (tm).

Kind regards,
Andrei
-- 
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Am 03.09.2012 15:14, schrieb Osamu Aoki:
> 
> > If the bug reporter wishes to kill everything about non-free from Debian
> > related documents and archive area, I can tell him to go to the source
> > :-) "Debian policy" (Sure this is in our "main" area which is the real
> > Debian system)
> > 
> >  2.2.3 The non-free archive area
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free
> > 
> > If the bug reporter can convince Debian folks in debian-project to agree
> > to remove these writings on non-free in our policy and make Debian not
> > to have non-free area, I will reconsider this bug report.
> [..]
> 
> Policy is the wrong point to start removing policy. non-free (and
> contrib FWIW) are written down in social contract §5, so we would need
> to change that first.

Darn ... you are right.

After initial rejection feeling, I have a bit constructive message.

This bug report should have been filed as wishlist bug if FSF is seeking
to make a derivative work called trisquel while working with Debian.

Calling to change Debian itself at fundamental points such as social
contract §5 is not practical at this point.

For example, if package build environment has pre-defined and agreed
environment variable such as:

DERIVATIVE=(undefined) # debian build
DERIVATIVE=debian  # debian build
DERIVATIVE=ubuntu  # ubuntu build
DERIVATIVE=trisquel# trisquel build

Then I can accept patch to skip including some parts of document for
trisquel build.  Even Debian policy document can emmbed such change as
long as document title changed to "trisquel policy" at the same time.

I think this is acceptable wishlist bug to my package.
Of course, I like to get patch for it :-) (Nah I can do it as long
as technical scheme is worked out.)

Regards,

Osamu


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Alexander Reichle-Schmehl]

Hi!

Am 03.09.2012 15:14, schrieb Osamu Aoki:

> If the bug reporter wishes to kill everything about non-free from Debian
> related documents and archive area, I can tell him to go to the source
> :-) "Debian policy" (Sure this is in our "main" area which is the real
> Debian system)
> 
>  2.2.3 The non-free archive area
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free
> 
> If the bug reporter can convince Debian folks in debian-project to agree
> to remove these writings on non-free in our policy and make Debian not
> to have non-free area, I will reconsider this bug report.
[..]

Policy is the wrong point to start removing policy. non-free (and
contrib FWIW) are written down in social contract §5, so we would need
to change that first.


Best regards,
  Alexander


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

This bug report was unclear and very confusing for me at first ...  But
I think he is the one confused or misguided, now.  I am CCing project
and zak since they seems to be the source of his argument.

If the bug reporter wishes to kill everything about non-free from Debian
related documents and archive area, I can tell him to go to the source
:-) "Debian policy" (Sure this is in our "main" area which is the real
Debian system)

 2.2.3 The non-free archive area
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free

If the bug reporter can convince Debian folks in debian-project to agree
to remove these writings on non-free in our policy and make Debian not
to have non-free area, I will reconsider this bug report.

I know FSF always wants to remove any trace from Debian associated
activities.  But this fine line of making "Debian" to mean "main" area
is a compromise we established in Debian.

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 10:24:58PM -0700, SirGrant wrote:
> Package: debian-reference
> Version: 2.46
> User: trisq...@trisquel.info
> Usertags: libreplanet, trisquel
> 
> I am reporting this bug because Stefano Zacchiroli has called for a
> "free-ness assessment" [2].  It is up to the package maintainer on how to
> proceed.

So you are making me feel I am doing something DPL does not approve...
But I can not find which specific comment of Zak provides such rationale
for this strange bug report.  Please state it clearly.  Otherwise, I
will close this bug report very soon.

> *Summary:* Package
> debian-referenceadvises
> the user that non-free software is a solution to problems.
> 
> *Versions Used:*
> 
>- Operating System: Trisquel 5.5

What is this Trisquel OS?  This seems derivative distribution.  I
maintain Debian so bug-ness should be based on Debian policy.
I see no problem with Debian policy.

>- Package: debian-reference
> (2.46)
  ^ OLD!
  http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debian-reference.html
  The latest version is 2.48

> *Steps to reproduce:*
> 
> (From the terminal)
> 
>- sudo apt-get install debian-reference
>- debian-reference
> 
> (Program opens documentation in browser)
> 
>- Click: HTML (multi files)
>- Click: 9.7.8. Non-free hardware drivers

Usually, we expect bug report to the latest version.  Things has moved.

  9.7.6. Non-free hardware drivers
  
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch09.en.html#_non_free_hardware_drivers
 
> (Documentation states:)
> 
>- "Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and
>as a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external
>drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system."
>- ect.

So what is the problem of debian-reference as Debian package.  I only
suggested possibility which is fact in written text.

Please understand the following are my understanding of handling
non-free packages.

 * RECOMMENDING/DEPENDING non-free package in the package dependency
   field is No according to Debian policy.
 * SUGGESTING non-free package in package dependency field is very 
   much accepted.  (You may not like this but this has been so defined 
   in Debian policy.)
 * MENTIONING fact on non-free package in the above context is never a
   problem.  Please pay extra attention to "may" in my text.  I
   carefully chose this "may" with reason.  I am not saying it is
   required nor recommended.  But we have fact on non-free driver HW
   which we need to live with.  Hiding fact will not make our life
   better or more free.  I do not think interfering with the FREEDOM of
   knowledge is good idea.  FSF which I supports is not such organization.

Please note our policy goes as follows:

 2.2.1 The main archive area
 http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-main
 * must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation
   or execution (thus, the package must not declare a "Pre-Depends",
   "Depends", "Recommends", "Build-Depends", or "Build-Depends-Indep"
   relationship on a non-main package)

You see it does not require not-to-list for "Suggests".  It talks about
non-free area so policy can not put plug on my mouth either.
 
> *References:*
> 
>- [1] List of software that does not respect the Free System
>Distribution Guidelines: debian-reference
>
> 

I think this your summary is sloppy and unfair.  That is your opinion.
Please do not accuse me of things I did not.

>- [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html

Osamu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#686481: debian-reference instructs users on how to install non-free software

[SirGrant]

Package: debian-reference
Version: 2.46
User: trisq...@trisquel.info
Usertags: libreplanet, trisquel

I am reporting this bug because Stefano Zacchiroli has called for a
"free-ness assessment" [2].  It is up to the package maintainer on how to
proceed.

*Summary:* Package
debian-referenceadvises
the user that non-free software is a solution to problems.

*Versions Used:*

   - Operating System: Trisquel 5.5
   - Package: debian-reference
(2.46)

*Steps to reproduce:*

(From the terminal)

   - sudo apt-get install debian-reference
   - debian-reference

(Program opens documentation in browser)

   - Click: HTML (multi files)
   - Click: 9.7.8. Non-free hardware drivers

(Documentation states:)

   - "Although most of hardware drivers are available as free software and
   as a part of the Debian system, you may need to load some non-free external
   drivers to support some hardwares, such as Winmodem, on your system."
   - ect.

*References:*

   - [1] List of software that does not respect the Free System
   Distribution Guidelines: debian-reference
   

   - [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html