Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:11:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
>  not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
>  documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
>  instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
>  non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a
>  success.
> 
> I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not,
>  hypocrisy . 

Whether or not anyone in Debian is taking a hypocritical position on this
issue[0], I think it would be very inappropriate to *chastize* anyone for
the fact that the GFDL does not meet the DFSG.  The FSF have indeed never
claimed that the GFDL was a Free Software license, and they don't claim that
the same freedoms that are required for programs are required for
documentation, either -- a position that you may recall is shared by a
significant number of developers within Debian.

We may have decided that extending the same freedoms to documentation and
data as to programs is important enough for us to take a stand on, but by no
means does that justify haughtiness towards our fellows in the Free Software
community.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/

[0] Wwhen an open organization such as Debian has individual members who
hold *different* positions, one usually describes that as "schizophrenic",
not "hypocritical"


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 05:38:10PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return".
> > Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both
> > emotionally/psychologically, and in helping people get up on their feet
> > so they can trade with you / work for you / employ you in future.
> > Charitable donations might have different tax considerations too.
> > By contrast, BSD-like licenses do nothing but give up your rights.
> > Copyleft licenses do something in between -- giving up your rights in
> > the hope that others will give up there's in return.
> People get emotional/psychological benefits from giving away their free
> software work under BSD/copyleft licences too; 

Sure, but that doesn't stop it from being a give away of your rights. It
only (potentially) stops it from being an "investment with no return".

> I can't say that I understand your "by contrast" here. There are
> certainly differences, but, with the exception of tax considerations,
> most of the things you list don't really seem to be among them.

I never claimed writing free software was an investment with no return.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Brian Nelson]

Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> * Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
 Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
  apt-get install debconf6-doc
>>>
>>> you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
>>> packages it.
>>
>> Uhhh, why would something like that be packaged?  Just put it on
>> http://www.debconf.org or something.  Don't bloat the archive with more
>> crap like this.
>
> And the rest of the documentation? What use is the Maintainers Guide to
> a user? 

It's relevant because it's about creating packages.  A dump of all stuff
from Debconf is not going to be as relevant or as generally useful.
Anything from Debconf that could be useful should be merged into the
Developer's Reference or something; not just dumped into a separate
package.

> Why would you need the Linux Gazette in the archives? 

We don't!  It's freaking useless.

> I see games there too - purge them, quick!

WTF?

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:17:06 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:

> > Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would
> > use such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid
> > thing to do...
> 
> So, if I'm parsing you right, you're saying that a person (such as
> myself) would only describe free software as giving up rights (such as
> I did) only if that person (me) thought that free software was a
> stupid thing to do?
> 
> If that's not what you're trying to say, would you kindly look back
> over your argument, and retract the error?

I said "resembles to", which is not "is equal to".
My example about charity intentionally amplified the situation to make
it clearer (I was hoping...).
If it confused things further, I apology.

"Investment with no return" seems (at least to me, YMMV) a stronger
phrase than "giving up rights". As a consequence, I didn't mean to say
that you think that free software is a stupid thing to do.
Just that you (well, Henning, IIRC) seemed to want to discourage people
to license in a DFSG-free manner by calling it in a way that makes it
appear as something better avoiding.

Again, I'm not an English native speaker. Apologies if sometimes I do
not choose words well enough... 

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4



pgpSRINepiOVt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Rich Walker]

Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> * Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
>>> Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
>>>  apt-get install debconf6-doc
>>
>> you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
>> packages it.
>
> Uhhh, why would something like that be packaged?  Just put it on
> http://www.debconf.org or something.  Don't bloat the archive with more
> crap like this.
>
> -- 
> Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

And the rest of the documentation? What use is the Maintainers Guide to
a user? Why would you need the Linux Gazette in the archives? I see
games there too - purge them, quick!

cheers, Rich.

(Captain Logic is my co-pilot.)


-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Brian Nelson]

Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
>> Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
>>  apt-get install debconf6-doc
>
> you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
> packages it.

Uhhh, why would something like that be packaged?  Just put it on
http://www.debconf.org or something.  Don't bloat the archive with more
crap like this.

-- 
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Rich Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-14 18:46:50]:
> Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
>  apt-get install debconf6-doc

you will, and most likely it will be 100% complete. if someone
packages it.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Rich Walker]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>
> The same benefit that accrue from freedom of software still
>  remain if that software bits represent a presentation; the
>  software/presentation can be modified to suit a particular need, and
>  redistributed, excepts can be used in other presentations, ica can be
>  part of a larger educational  effort. Like any other software, having
>  the free software/presentation bits  leads to collaboation,
>  invention, and greater benefit to the community of users.
>
> It is a pity that a conference of debian developers, and
>  others interested in developing debian, which is itself dedicated to
>  being wholly free, and who has just rejected the GFDL as not being
>  free enough to be a part of debian, is now saying that in order to be
>  a part of Debian's conference, anything goes, and the sole rationale
>  given is that non-free stuff, while restricting the usage rights of
>  the community, is OK to ensure the success of the conference. 

Hold on - does this mean I will or won't be able to do
 apt-get install debconf6-doc
?

cheers, Rich.


-- 
rich walker |  Shadow Robot Company | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
technical director 251 Liverpool Road   |
need a Hand?   London  N1 1LX   | +UK 20 7700 2487
www.shadow.org.uk/products/newhand.shtml


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Colin Watson]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:17:06PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return".
> 
> Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both
> emotionally/psychologically, and in helping people get up on their feet
> so they can trade with you / work for you / employ you in future.
> Charitable donations might have different tax considerations too.
> 
> By contrast, BSD-like licenses do nothing but give up your rights.
> Copyleft licenses do something in between -- giving up your rights in
> the hope that others will give up there's in return.

People get emotional/psychological benefits from giving away their free
software work under BSD/copyleft licences too; people hope that they'll
get contributions to their work from other people in return from making
it freely available (even if they don't require contributions under even
the limited set of circumstances in which copyleft licences require
them); and people have certainly found employment as a result of people
making use of things they've given away under free licences, although I
don't think that's the primary motivator for most people much more than
it is in the case of charity.

I can't say that I understand your "by contrast" here. There are
certainly differences, but, with the exception of tax considerations,
most of the things you list don't really seem to be among them.

Cheers,

-- 
Colin Watson   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:04:51 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying
>> poorly to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be
>> giving freely licensed talks a greater weight than non-free
>> ones. They're also going to make it easy to choose a free license
>> from their interface. Furthermore, it implies a very strong desire
>> to have freely licensed materials

> All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a
> DSFG-free license is not *required*.

Which is a pity.

The same benefit that accrue from freedom of software still
 remain if that software bits represent a presentation; the
 software/presentation can be modified to suit a particular need, and
 redistributed, excepts can be used in other presentations, ica can be
 part of a larger educational  effort. Like any other software, having
 the free software/presentation bits  leads to collaboation,
 invention, and greater benefit to the community of users.

It is a pity that a conference of debian developers, and
 others interested in developing debian, which is itself dedicated to
 being wholly free, and who has just rejected the GFDL as not being
 free enough to be a part of debian, is now saying that in order to be
 a part of Debian's conference, anything goes, and the sole rationale
 given is that non-free stuff, while restricting the usage rights of
 the community, is OK to ensure the success of the conference. 

I se this as saying that  freedom is OK until it comes to
 something real, like holding a conference, and then the whole
 community/rights/freedom thingy is unworkable and too restrictive for
 words.

There has been no argument that the rights of software freedom
 would not apply to software that represents presentations, only that
 somehow freedom implies you do not get the best of what is out there.

Yes, a pity.

>> Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference you'll
>> get involved in the future and help to make it even better.

> I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am
> opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it
> is being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out
> simply because of the licensing.

Yes, I understannd you are in opposition. What you have not
 explained is why, or why are the reasons that software that
 represents programs or software that represents documentation should
 be free do not also apply to software that represents presentation
 materials.  Why is it that the end user who looks st the presentation
 support software should not also gain the benefit of any free
 software, to edit, modify, incorporate into larger works, and freely
 distribute the result to others in the community.

manoj

-- 
There are two ways of disliking poetry; one way is to dislike it, the
other is to read Pope.  -- Oscar Wilde
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:21:38 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 06:59:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>> > On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to
>> >> licenses their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can
>> >> distribute the papers as part of Debian.
>> > I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
>> > contains too many non-software packages.
>> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian
>> was software.  Are you confusing software and computer programs?

> In case you hadn't noticed, for the Debian project's purposes
> software is a synonym for computer programs; if it weren't the
> reversion of the social contract would have had no effect on the
> "non-free documentation in main" question. Indeed, the secretary
> refused to allow a GR proposal to revert that policy without
> limiting the social contract to talking about free "software".


The editorial change actually had no effect on the social
 contract, which is why it was called an editorial change. So, by
 definition, since there was no real change to social contract,
 everything that is encoded in debian using 1's and 0's is software,
 as opposed to hardware or wetware.

Do not pretend that your particular interpretation is the
 universally accepted one; the fact that no one objected to the GR
 title means that people who were paying attention agreed with
 everything is software, and people not paying attention, well. At the
 very least, there are varying interpretations, and pretending there
 are not does not help your thesis any.

manoj
-- 
Men who cherish for women the highest respect are seldom popular with
them. Joseph Addison
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Andrew Saunders]

On 11/14/05, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I case you hadn't noticed, there was a major _difference_ in opionons
> about how "software" was to be interpreted. The editorial
> clarification in 2004-003 removed the confusion by avoiding the
> ambiguous word "software"

Unfortunately not. :-(

The GR's author explained[1] that both the DFSG and the SC required
clarifying, but that in the interests of simplicity the necessary
changes would be dealt with in separate GRs. Thus, 2004-003 clarified
only the SC. Until his follow-up GR amending the DFSG is proposed and
passed, the ambiguity will remain.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00435.html

--
Andrew Saunders

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Neil McGovern]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 03:04:51PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
> > to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
> > licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
> > make it easy to choose a free license from their interface. Furthermore, it
> > implies a very strong desire to have freely licensed materials
> 
> All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a
> DSFG-free license is not *required*.
> 

At the moment, this is correct.

A discussion was had on the mailing list[0] and the irc channel[1] on a
similar issue, whether we should allow non-free software for the
presentation of slides.

I updated the site to state:
"If using slides, please consider that your audience will consist of


  
people who use free software, and your choice of application to prepare 


  
and display the slides should reflect this if at all possible." 


  



  
I think this strikes a good balance of: 


  
"Use free software! Use free software! Use free software! Oh, ok, if you


  
really can't, I suppose we'll let you get away with it. But you should
really."

> > Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference
> > you'll get involved in the future and help to make it even better.
> 
> I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am
> opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it is
> being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out simply
> because of the licensing.
> 

Interestingly, no one has asked us to do so on the team list.

Regards,
Neil McGovern
[0] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[1] #debconf-team @ Freenode
-- 
   __   
 .`  `. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Application Manager
 : :' !  | Secure-Testing Team member
 '. `-  gpg: B345BDD3| Webapps Team member
   `-   Please don't cc, I'm subscribed to the list


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Anthony Towns 

> In case you hadn't noticed, for the Debian project's purposes software
> is a synonym for computer programs; if it weren't the reversion of the
> social contract would have had no effect on the "non-free documentation
> in main" question.

I case you hadn't noticed, there was a major _difference_ in opionons
about how "software" was to be interpreted. The editorial
clarification in 2004-003 removed the confusion by avoiding the
ambiguous word "software", but that does in no way mean that the
ambiguity does not exist.

-- 
Henning Makholm "This imposes the restriction on any
  procedure statement that the kind and type
 of each actual parameter be compatible with the
   kind and type of the corresponding formal parameter."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
> to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
> licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
> make it easy to choose a free license from their interface. Furthermore, it
> implies a very strong desire to have freely licensed materials

All of that is nice and well, but it does not change the fact that a
DSFG-free license is not *required*.

> Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference
> you'll get involved in the future and help to make it even better.

I am perfectly happy with the way the conference is being run. I am
opposing those people who want the organisers to change the way it is
being run, such that DFSG-nonfree papers will be thrown out simply
because of the licensing.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "It was intended to compile from some approximation to
 the M-notation, but the M-notation was never fully defined,
because representing LISP functions by LISP lists became the
 dominant programming language when the interpreter later became available."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 06:59:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> > On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
> >> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
> >> papers as part of Debian.  
> > I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
> > contains too many non-software packages.
> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
> software.  Are you confusing software and computer programs?

In case you hadn't noticed, for the Debian project's purposes software
is a synonym for computer programs; if it weren't the reversion of the
social contract would have had no effect on the "non-free documentation
in main" question. Indeed, the secretary refused to allow a GR proposal
to revert that policy without limiting the social contract to talking
about free "software".

HTH, HAND!

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 04:56:37PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> > > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free
> > > works is something wrong or inappropriate.
> > Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights.
> Of course it is.
> Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, my apologies.
> What I meant is that using that description is suitable if you want to
> depict licening in a DFSG-free manner as something wrong that people
> should *avoid*.

If the description is accurate, it's suitable at any time.

> It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return".

Perhaps; though there are differences. Charity does have returns: both
emotionally/psychologically, and in helping people get up on their feet
so they can trade with you / work for you / employ you in future.
Charitable donations might have different tax considerations too.

By contrast, BSD-like licenses do nothing but give up your rights.
Copyleft licenses do something in between -- giving up your rights in
the hope that others will give up there's in return.

> Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would use
> such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid thing to
> do...

So, if I'm parsing you right, you're saying that a person (such as myself)
would only describe free software as giving up rights (such as I did) only
if that person (me) thought that free software was a stupid thing to do?

If that's not what you're trying to say, would you kindly look back over
your argument, and retract the error?

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
>> related to programs in Debian.
>
> You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
> management, the NM process, dealing with disappearing maintainers,
> models for collaborations with upstream authors, port status and
> buildds, NMU policies and etiquette, etc?

All of that seems to be related to programs in Debian.  Who knows?

I can see no good reason not to distribute it.  We should be
distributing the software which implements all these things anyway.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> > "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free
> > works is something wrong or inappropriate.
> 
> Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights.

Of course it is.
Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly enough, my apologies.
What I meant is that using that description is suitable if you want to
depict licening in a DFSG-free manner as something wrong that people
should *avoid*.

It resembles describing charity as "investment with no return".
Well, it's not an inaccurate description (I think), but you would use
such a definition only if you think that charity is a stupid thing to
do...

[...]
> We shouldn't
> forget what an enormous act of generosity that is.

Indeed, it really is.
And Debian would not exist without numerous acts of generosity by many
many people around the planet.
Thinking that should remind everyone that giving back to the community
should be considered a good thing to do, everytime it is possible...

[...]
> > If a paper/presentation/handout is interesting enough (I hope every
> > author thinks his/her is, otherwise he/she would not give a talk at
> > DebConf!), someone could modify it (in order to update it, improve
> > it, translate it into another spoken language, ...) and reuse it (to
> > give a talk in another conference, or to build a useful HOWTO, or
> > whatever...). This mechanism would enable further spreading of good
> > documentation on the subjects we care of.
> 
> Sure -- and all those things are possible with certain classes of
> non-DFSG-free licenses too.

Possible? Yes, but with non-free constraints and conditions that make
it less likely to happen.
Personally I would not spend time to create a derivative of a GFDL'd or
CC-by-nc-sa'd work. The conditions to be complied with are too
demanding, IMO.

> 
> You might as well have said "If a paper is interesting enough, someone
> might want to include it in Debian" -- in which case I'd have to
> demur; I don't think my debbugs paper should be included in Debian,
> because as interesting as it is, it's stuck in a particular time,
> that, four months after the fact, is already obsolete. As far as good
> documentation goes, updating the inline documentation in the code
> would be much more valuable. OTOH, if someone wants to do that, and
> has an actual use for content from my paper (which seems unlikely to
> me), I'd be happy to bless that work under the debbugs license.

So why didn't you license it in a DFSG-free manner in the first place,
if you are ready to relicense upon request?
Time is precious, you know: many people could be interested to build
upon your paper, but be `scared' away by the license and be too busy (or
shy) to try to persuade you to relicense.
Maybe there are people that did so: you will never know...

One of the strengths of free software is allowing unexpected and
surprising uses and modifications of one's work.
Think for a second about Linux.
Linus Torvalds started it as a little personal project (IIRC, he
initially described it by saying that it would never going to be
something serious...). In that context a non-commercial license (similar
to the old Minix one) could make sense.
Imagine how the history could be different from the one we know, if
Linus had chosen such a restrictive license...
Fortunately he chose the GPLv2.
 
[...]
> As a counter example, debconf5 went pretty well without
> those permissions.

Pretty well from many points of view, but not if you count the number of
DFSG-free works that were produced for the conference... Very few people
chose DFSG-free licenses.

> What activities would you want to undertake that
> have been specifically blocked by the dc5 paper licensing?

I don't know. I haven't even had much time to _read_ the papers.
But, as I explained above: expect the unexpected...

[...]
> > Many typos and mistakes may be fixed.
> > Some parts may be improved.
> > Some parts may be updated, as time goes on.
> > What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
> > document.
> > 
> > Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is
> > granted.
> 
> That would be the case if relicensing were impossible, but, well, it
> is.

So your ideal situation is: everyone choses non-free licenses and then
is got in touch with, asked to relicense and, after a long discussion,
re-releases the paper in a DFSG-free manner.
Remember that each author would need a separate (possibly) long
discussion.

I still think it's much simpler to get DFSG-free papers in the first
place...

[...]
> > Huh?
> > Papers are generally written *before* the conference takes place,
> > not *after* (or does DebConf work the other way around?).
> > How can papers talk about "what happened at the conference"? 
> 
> In the same way that astronomers can tell you t

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[David Nusinow]

On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:13:31PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> >> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
> >> > used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
> >> > freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and
> >> > retain all copyrights.
> 
> > I agree with and support the decision of the organizers to allow any
> > DFSG-free license for the papers to be acceptable.
> 
> The point of the discussion is not whether authors should be *allowed*
> to licence their papers DFSG-freely. Everybody agrees that that is a
> good thing.
> 
> The disagreement is about whether authots should be *forced* to
> licence their papers DFSG-freely, under threat of exclusion from the
> conference.
> 
> > That they are mandating this is acceptible and is to be encouraged
> 
> They are *not* mandating a DFSG-free license. All they are mandating
> is that the conference gets non-exclusive publications rigthts.

>From reading the responses from Andreas, rather than people trying poorly
to interpret him, it's pretty apparent that they'll be giving freely
licensed talks a greater weight than non-free ones. They're also going to
make it easy to choose a free license from their interface. Furthermore, it
implies a very strong desire to have freely licensed materials. I believe
these desires are sincere and that they'll look to have a complete panel of
high quality freely licensed papers for the conference.

Ultimately though, it's a judgement call, and you simply have to trust the
people doing the work. They have shown a desire to encourage free software,
and have also shown the ability to put on a successful debconf. This is why
I support their decision to run the conference as their experience
dictates. Hopefully if you don't like the way they run the conference
you'll get involved in the future and help to make it even better.

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
>> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
>> > used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
>> > freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and
>> > retain all copyrights.

> I agree with and support the decision of the organizers to allow any
> DFSG-free license for the papers to be acceptable.

The point of the discussion is not whether authors should be *allowed*
to licence their papers DFSG-freely. Everybody agrees that that is a
good thing.

The disagreement is about whether authots should be *forced* to
licence their papers DFSG-freely, under threat of exclusion from the
conference.

> That they are mandating this is acceptible and is to be encouraged

They are *not* mandating a DFSG-free license. All they are mandating
is that the conference gets non-exclusive publications rigthts.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
 useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
> related to programs in Debian.

You expect no contributions about release procedures, bug report
management, the NM process, dealing with disappearing maintainers,
models for collaborations with upstream authors, port status and
buildds, NMU policies and etiquette, etc?

> Personally, I'd like to read the papers.  It's a shame that Debian
> can't distribute them to me. 

If your entire contact with the outside world is through apt
repositories, you ought to rethink your communication strategy.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "The compile-time type checker for this
   language has proved to be a valuable filter which
  traps a significant proportion of programming errors."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:15:20 -0500, David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
>> 
>> > Fine Print Publication Rights
>> > 
>> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
>> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual
>> > materials used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors
>> > have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers
>> > themselves and retain all copyrights.

> I agree with and support the decision of the organizers to allow any
> DFSG-free license for the papers to be acceptable. That they are
> mandating this is acceptible and is to be encouraged for an event
> connected with Debian.


In case this is not already clear, I  too agree with the
 decision to allow the authors the choice of _any_ DFSG free license. 

manoj
-- 
Death: to stop sinning suddenly.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

>> Personally, I'd like to read the papers.  It's a shame that Debian
>> can't distribute them to me. 

> Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.

Debian does not want what?  To distribute them?  Hogwash.  I'd be
happy to upload them.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[David Nusinow]

On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:28:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:01:48 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> 
> > Fine Print Publication Rights
> > 
> > Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> > presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
> > used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
> > freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and
> > retain all copyrights.

I agree with and support the decision of the organizers to allow any
DFSG-free license for the papers to be acceptable. That they are mandating
this is acceptible and is to be encouraged for an event connected with
Debian.

 - David Nusinow


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:52:05 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
>> > been an obstacle?
>> Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
> So it looks like you have issues with all licenses not compatible
> with the one you choose, being them DFSG-free or not.

Err, did you not read? I said the core of the effort was the
 presentation; and the license I used obviously had to be
 compatible. Proceeding to dot the i's and cross the t's, the project
 can grow, and be incorporated into Debian, no matter which DFSG free
 license Colin had selected; since my work was based on his, obviously
 my license had to be compatible.

The point is this: had the original license not been free,
 none of the rest would have grown up to potentially be included in
 Debian -- and thus the fact that the original license was free was
 critical.

manoj

-- 
Imitation is the sincerest form of television. Fred Allen
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Raul Miller]

It seems to me that we have some responsibility for the licenses used
on these presentations.

It also seems to me that we should structure our approach to these
licenses similarly to the way we approach other license issues.

That is: we should encourage people to use a DFSG license, and we
should label the presentations to let people know whether it's
main/contrib or non-free.

We don't have to exclude non-free presentations to encourage free software.

However, unlike other conference holding bodies (such as the ACM), we
aren't really in the business of collecting and selling copyrighted
material.  So rather than asking for a transfer of license to
ourselves we should be asking for a DFSG copyright on the material.

But SHOULD is not MUST any more than it is SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT.

You build a community by encouraging participation, not by mandating
it (nor by discouraging or forbidding it).  This applies to our part
in the free software community as much as it applies to anyone's part
in any other community.

--
Raul

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
> related to programs in Debian.
This still does not generally make them documentation.

> Personally, I'd like to read the papers.  It's a shame that Debian
> can't distribute them to me. 
Debian does not want, it's quite a different issue.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
> > been an obstacle?
> Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
So it looks like you have issues with all licenses not compatible with
the one you choose, being them DFSG-free or not.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:21:46 +0100, Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of his
>> Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
>> group an excellent introduction to Debian (with full attribution,
>> of course); a non-free license would have been an obstacle.
> Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have
> been an obstacle?

Because it is being incorporated in a larger work: My
 presentation accompanies a HOWTO, and has various scripts and example
 code to elucidate the point. I have been able to incorporate parts
 Colin's  presentation into mine, and accompany that with
 documentations, scripts, examples, and at some point the whole shal
 be packaged; by the seed of it was the presentation, and now
 something has grown up around it.

manoj
-- 
America: born free and taxed to death.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation?  What is the
>> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?

> No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
> their related documentation, like e-zines, books, etc.

It seems to me that the papers at a Debian conference are almost all
related to programs in Debian.  I haven't been to a conference, so
maybe they are actually about beer, religion, and porn.

Personally, I'd like to read the papers.  It's a shame that Debian
can't distribute them to me. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation?  What is the
> non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?
No, I am saying that debian has too many stuff which is not programs nor
their related documentation, like e-zines, books, etc.
This is not a new topic, if it's not familiar to you I am sure that you
will be able to find plenty of old threads about this in the
debian-devel@ archives.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
>> software.  Are you confusing software and computer programs?

> No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction is useful.

And yet, here's a case where it would be useful!

Are you saying that Debian has too much documentation?  What is the
non-computer-program which we have "too much" of?

I would venture to say that *most* of the archive is non-programs: web
pages, documentation, and all kind of other such stuff.  Could you
prepare a list of which man pages you think we should drop?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
> software.  Are you confusing software and computer programs?
No, I just do not believe that this specious distinction is useful.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of
>  his Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
>  group an excellent introduction to Debian (with full attribution, of
>  course); a non-free license would have been an obstacle.
Can you explain exactly how a CC copyleft-like license would have been
an obstacle?

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Our goal is to produce the best FREE operating system
>  possible; and a secondary goal is to convince people that when
>  information is free, all kinds of unintended collaboration occurs --
>  which may not even have been envisaged by the original authors.

I dispute that the thing you call a secondary goal is a goal of the
Debian project at all. You are very welcome to have that as a personal
goal, and to do whatever you can to convince people of the matter.
But please do not try to force that goal upon the entire Debian
project. We're here, as a project to produce the best free operating
system possible. No more, no less.

> If it is not even necesary, then why are we not using this as
>  an opportunity to spread the word that free licenses are indeed
>  viable, and can work even for conferences?

Because the project is not about advocating a free-anything
philosophy. The project should be open to anybody who agrees that free
SOFTWARE is a good thing. It would be wrong, wrong, wrong, to decide
that people are second-class members of the project just beacuse they
do not extend that opinion to things that are not part of the
operating system.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "We will discuss your youth another time."


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
>> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
>> papers as part of Debian.  

> I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
> contains too many non-software packages.

I'm sorry, I was under the impression that every package in Debian was
software.  Are you confusing software and computer programs?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:17:38 +0100, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> at the last debconf in Helsinki there were people from outside
> debian giving talks, too. Hopefully we will have input from outside
> even in the future.

Last time I looked, even our OS is full of contributions from
 people outside Debian.  Indeed, most of the software  we distribute
 came from somewhere else, and under a free license so we, and our
 users, can modify for our own use, distribute it, use it in new and
 novel ways, and grab useful bits and pieces to make our own programs
 better.

Every bit of that applies to talks as well (thanks Colin
 Walters), and I fail to see why this is also not something we should
 strive for.

manoj
-- 
You will lose an important tape file.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:43:07 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> This is a conference for Debian development. By definition, Debian
>> is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people contributing to
>> Debian are already familiar with the social contract, and have
>> decided to conform to it?

> You are mistaken in thinking that the social contract mandates
> anything about the freesom of things that we do not put into our
> operating system.

Mandates, no. But why do you think we even have a social
 contract? Why do we insist on having new members ratify it? There are
 not just silly rules and historical formalities; there is an
 underlying  belief that says that when information is free, the
 resulting collaborations, synergy, and novel uses of bits and pieces
 in a new whole can make the new effort far more rewarding, and allow
 it to go further, than if the information or software was not free.

All these applies to talks as well; talks can be reused,
 modified, have bits included in other talks, to make the new talk
 better, and to spread the ideas further, and create new ideas, far
 better than if the original had been under a stifling non0free
 license,

>> Are you now advocating we throw open contribution to Debian to all
>> kinds of licenses for software content, and not run away from the
>> non-free software by refusing to do so?

> Why do you persist in refusing to to ignore people making a
> distinction between things we put into our operating system and
> things that we don't?

Because I am looking deeper than just the surfaec; in a
 shallow look, I guess there  is nothing in the words of the social
 contract that applies to what Debian does otherwise,. However, the
 principles of freedom of information still apply in both cases.

I do think it is about time that we practiced the freedom of
 information being useful more than as just a mere slogan and have our
 conferences be a mirror of our distribution: useable bits of
 information and presentation that pepe can modify for their own use,
 combine in other presentations, and feed back additions and
 orrections, making our conference papers a living document, and a
 shared resource.

manoj
-- 
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him. Arthur R. Miller
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:59:08 +0100, Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> * Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
>> Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
>> requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
>> uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
>> as enshrined in our social contract, be respected.
>> 
>> If there is ever a collection of papers that appear to be a product
>> of the Debian project, or seem to be endorsed by it, I suspect we
>> can ask for the spirit of the social contract be not blatantly
>> violated.

> the goal of the debian conferences is not to produce a pile of
> papers or other materials. it's goal is to inspire the participants
> to work on debian even in the coming year, give them new ideas and
> renew their dedication and passion to the project.

By the same token, software is there to help users do their
 job, and part of being the best OS there is is to allow our users to
 be more productive, and best make use of the tool (that is, the OS)
 we present them. By that simple reasoniung, is it not better to give
 the users all the software we can, even if it means installing Debian
 requires signing EULA's?

> If talks and papers conflict with that goal we might have to skip
> them. They are not the main purpose of the conference, but are
> supposed to serve as a tool to that end.

Our goal is to produce the best FREE operating system
 possible; and a secondary goal is to convince people that when
 information is free, all kinds of unintended collaboration occurs --
 which may not even have been envisaged by the original authors.
 Freely licensed talks may allow people to use them in other
 conferences and meetings (my LUG would be ever grateful to Colin
 Walters for his liberal licensing since it gave us a much better
 insight into Debian packaging). 

When information is free, it can be used in ways that greatly
 multiply the utility to the community (look at the myriad uses of
 google maps that have sprung up when google opened up the API).

> So far it is doubtfull that that is even necessary, as last years
> lack of freely licensensed papers was mainly due to speakers not
> picking a lisense instead of them picking a non-free one. We
> recognized that problem and will make it easier for them to pick a
> free lisense by letting them pick one from a list when submitting
> the paper via the website.

If it is not even necesary, then why are we not using this as
 an opportunity to spread the word that free licenses are indeed
 viable, and can work even for conferences?  That they are not just
 hobbyist tools to be discarded at the first whiff of any thing real
 and practical, like running a conference?

manoj
-- 
Zero Defects, n.: The result of shutting down a production line.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:32:50 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> >> distributable.
>> > Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
>> > stuff from the free stuff.
>> I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough mark
>> the distinction.

> *shrug* The only lack of clarity comes when people indulge in
> sweeping rhetoric claiming that everything Debian related is 100%
> free, which is not true now and never has been.

Yep, it is awfully convenient when people disagreeing with us
 can be labelled as merely indulging in sweeping rhetoric.

To the point tat hand: while we might not have ever met the
 goals outlined in the social contract, there was never any
 doubt that we were striving for it -- freedom, amd free licenses,
 were always something you could count on Debian to embrace, any
 deviations were errors and omissions to be corrected, and not
 precedents to point to and say we could relax the stance that
 non-free licesnses hindered the community that we were trying to
 foster and harmed users in the long run.

> Personally, the conclusion I'm coming to is that Debian's spent a
> little too much time trying to have it both ways on issues like
> this, rather than fighting for what we actually believe even when
> that doesn't fit into a simple slogan.

What I actually believe in (I am sure you were not saying you
 know better than I what I believe in, with that royal we, do you) is
 that free information is worth striving for, no matter what form that
 information takes.

Case in point: Thanks to Colin Walter's liberal licensing of
 his Debian packaging talk, I was able to give my local Linux users
 group an excellent introduction to Debian (with full attribution, of
 course); a non-free license would have been an obstacle.

manoj
-- 
How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb? One, but you
can never change it back again.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
>  Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
>  contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
>  and have decided to conform to it?

You are mistaken in thinking that the social contract mandates
anything about the freesom of things that we do not put into our
operating system.

> Are you now advocating we throw open contribution to Debian to
>  all kinds of licenses for software content, and not run away from the
>  non-free software by refusing to do so?

Why do you persist in refusing to to ignore people making a
distinction between things we put into our operating system and things
that we don't?

Debian is not about freedom for all content. Debian is about an
operating system that consists of free content. The project has no
official opinion about contents that is not in our operating system.

> Hmm. Blogs and mail, where the content is percieved to be the
>  opinion of the author, and notratified by the project, seems
>  definitely different from invited talks and papers,

I dont see a difference that is not overshadowed by orders of
magnitude by the difference between things we put into our operating
system and things that we don't put into our operating system.

> I see. The project using funds to defray expenses of people
>  who attend the conference counts for nothing, eh? You see nothing
>  wrong in the Debian project paying for  a paper with a non-free
>  content?

Not as long as that paper is not put into our operating system.

> Actually, if it is considered a part of Debian by a
>  significant number of observers, we are failing to clearly mark
>  content as non-free,

No we are not. You allege that those observers think that Debian means
"free, even if marked otherwise". That is simply not true.

> So, you are advocating shipping, say, EULA'd sotware in
>  Debian, and letting the best software win, and the hell with the
>  DFSG? Or, if not, why the difference in your stance?

Why do you insist on ignoring the enormous difference between
shipping something in our operating system and not shipping something
in our operating system?

-- 
Henning Makholm"De kan rejse hid og did i verden nok så flot
 Og er helt fortrolig med alverdens militær"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 20:42:39]:
> Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
>  requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
>  uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
>  as enshrined in our social contract, be respected.
> 
> If there is ever a collection of papers that appear to be a
>  product of the Debian project, or seem to be endorsed by it, I suspect
>  we can ask for the spirit of the social contract be not blatantly
>  violated. 

the goal of the debian conferences is not to produce a pile of
papers or other materials. it's goal is to inspire the
participants to work on debian even in the coming year, give them
new ideas and renew their dedication and passion to the project.

If talks and papers conflict with that goal we might have to
skip them. They are not the main purpose of the conference, but
are supposed to serve as a tool to that end.

That said, we strive for free papers and talks and discourage
non-free ones strongly. We, the organizers, would like to have
the freedom to use common sense and judge together if a given
speaker/topic/idea who's paper's license conflicts with our
requirement still can give a talk, if we think that it is worth
it. Of course we will try to work together with him to find a
way to license his talk/paper in a way that would fit both his
and our requirements. 

So far it is doubtfull that that is even necessary, as last years
lack of freely licensensed papers was mainly due to speakers not
picking a lisense instead of them picking a non-free one. We
recognized that problem and will make it easier for them to pick
a free lisense by letting them pick one from a list when
submitting the paper via the website.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Anthony Towns  wrote:

> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
I used to think we could do well without it (or at least we could in a
couple of years) because free software made non-free software unneeded,
then I changed my opinion when source-less firmwares were expelled from
main.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
> their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
> papers as part of Debian.  
I think this is an awful reason, considering that Debian already
contains too many non-software packages.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Anthony Towns  wrote:

> Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual
> reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem
> to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used.
I suppose that it's hard to find arguments against against a copyleft CC
license when many people do not even believe that it's not free.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Marco d'Itri]

On Nov 13, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
>  not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
>  documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
>  instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
>  non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a
>  success.
Yes, you have caught the point: *you* and a few others keep complaining
about usage of the GFDL and CC licenses, "we" do not mind.

(Actually I consider the non-NC and non-ND licenses DFSG-free, so I care
even less about this thread.)

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-12 23:40:57]:

> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns  
> said: 
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
> > But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
> > for our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying
> > to avoid those issues. Because insisting non-free stuff not appear
> > at debconf seems like trying to avoid acknowledging its existence in
> > the same manner as "sweeping stuff under the carpet", rather than
> > having the non-free stuff appear and trying to convince possibly
> > disagreeable folks that the DFSG's terms really are worth following
> > no matter what your goals.
> 
> This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
>  Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
>  contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
>  and have decided to conform to it? (If now, why try to help Debian,
>  which, as a project, has ratified the SC, and thus the DFSG == free
>  ideal). 

at the last debconf in Helsinki there were people from outside
debian giving talks, too. Hopefully we will have input from
outside even in the future.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> >> distributable.
> > Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> > stuff from the free stuff.
> I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
>  mark the distinction. 

*shrug* The only lack of clarity comes when people indulge in sweeping
rhetoric claiming that everything Debian related is 100% free, which is
not true now and never has been.

>  I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
>  this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
>  that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no
>  difference. 

No, I specifically cited the difference from some other distributions --
that we separate it out quite clearly.

Personally, the conclusion I'm coming to is that Debian's spent a little
too much time trying to have it both ways on issues like this, rather than
fighting for what we actually believe even when that doesn't fit into a
simple slogan.

> I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
>  label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
>  previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
>  is coming to the time where the question should again be open for
>  discussion. 

Maybe we should just have it on a set date annually, no matter who won
last time.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
> for our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying
> to avoid those issues. Because insisting non-free stuff not appear
> at debconf seems like trying to avoid acknowledging its existence in
> the same manner as "sweeping stuff under the carpet", rather than
> having the non-free stuff appear and trying to convince possibly
> disagreeable folks that the DFSG's terms really are worth following
> no matter what your goals.

This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
 Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
 contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
 and have decided to conform to it? (If now, why try to help Debian,
 which, as a project, has ratified the SC, and thus the DFSG == free
 ideal). 


Is there a need for us to invite software bits that are not
 free? Would we not be better off espousing the cause of freedom of
 software, even though doing so means I can't include all kinds of
 nifty stuff like cedega to run Quicken in Etch, or non-free papers in
 a conference of Debian developers?

> The world at large has lots of non-free licenses for content -- if
> we wanted to run away from that fact and avoid it, wouldn't we
> create a little enclave of our own with guards at the gate telling
> everyone who doesn't meet our standards to go back home, in the same
> way debconf is?

Are you now advocating we throw open contribution to Debian to
 all kinds of licenses for software content, and not run away from the
 non-free software by refusing to do so?

> (Hrm, I'm actually not sure why I chose the CC license now; I
> thought I remembered the dc5 CFP said papers had to be GPLed or
> CCed, and that tweaking all the mindless DFSG bigots by licensing my
> paper in a way that's adequately free, yet not DFSG-free would be
> fun. But the dc5 CC stuff was actually just for the recordings,
> afaics, so maybe that wasn't it, or maybe I was just confused. Oh
> well)

Hmm. While making tweaking other peoples nose as a criteria
 selecting a license for content I have created seems bizarre and
 juvenile to me, but you are not me, and it is your prerogative.


> My blog's aggregated on planet.debian.org; these lists posts (that
> aren't explicitly licensed at all, let alone DFSG-freely) are
> archived on lists.debian.org, and bug related conversations (which
> likewise are generally only implicitly licensed) are archived on
> bugs.debian.org.

Hmm. Blogs and mail, where the content is percieved to be the
 opinion of the author, and notratified by the project, seems
 definitely different from invited talks and papers, with the
 invitation coming from Debian developers, for a conference related to
 Debian development, and where the Debian project defrays the cost of
 the presenters -- a hole new ball game, no?

> Of these, debconf probably is the one that makes least use of the
> "imprimatur of the Debian project", being hosted at debconf.org.

I see. The project using funds to defray expenses of people
 who attend the conference counts for nothing, eh? You see nothing
 wrong in the Debian project paying for  a paper with a non-free
 content? So we would be paying for non-free software (which
 represents a presentation)?


Somehow, I kinda find that ... unusual, to say the least.

> In the same way that non-free, which is distributed by DEbian, can

I am glad you brought that up. I think the world has changed
 since we last looked at that issue, and perhjaps 2006 is a  good year
 to re-examine that via a fresh GR?

> be construed as the product of the Debian project or in any way part
> of Debian, then we're constrained to have non-free be free?

Actually, if it is considered a part of Debian by a
 significant number of observers, we are failing to clearly mark
 content as non-free, and should take steps so as to not dilute our
 message of the importance of freedom of software.

> That's a deeply erroneous argument, both at a factual level, and as
> advocacy.

I beg to differ.

> It's far more effective to advocate for something by demonstrating
> you're not prejudiced against the alternatives, and simply in favour
> of the best thing winning, and that you, personally, think the best
> thing is free software. You not only get your point across, but you
> also get to establish that you're not in denial about the strengths
> of your opposition and that your judgement and arguments can be
> listened to without having to filter out too much self-serving bias.

So, you are advocating shipping, say, EULA'd sotware in
 Debian, and letting the best software win, and the hell with the
 DFSG? Or, if not, why the difference in your stance?

>> If, of course, Debconf is a 

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>> > accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>> > copies.  I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>> > that.
>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.

> Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> stuff from the free stuff.

I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
 mark the distinction. I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
 this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
 that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no
 difference. 

If the perception is indeed that Debian distributes non-free
 software (and the distinction that this is  not part of Debian really
 is silly), then I do think we need to move the non-free archive off
 Debian.org machines.

If distributring non-free software  is not only deemed
 acceptable, but doing so by debian seen as routine,  then we are
 losing the vision of the SC (in my opinion). Either we change the
 social contract, or it is time to clearly mark non-free software as
 such by moving it off our machines.

> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
> but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.

I was one of that majority. I have changed my mind. I think it
 is far easier now than it was a few years ago to host  any non-free
 packages anyone is interested in. Hell, I'll even volunteer to help
 run such a machine if it means that the non-free software moves off
 debian.org machines.

I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
 label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
 previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
 is coming to the time where the question should again be open for
 discussion. 

manoj
-- 
Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask "Why?".
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:36:36 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> >  said:
>> > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
>> > > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper
>> > > this year.
>> > I was not aware that you were soliciting opinions. If you
>> >  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my
>> >  opinion after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you
>> >  think my rectitude was implicit approval.
>> I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].  I was willing to get in
>> touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince you to relicense the
>> paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found the time to do
>> so...

> Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any
> actual reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you
> actually seem to be itching to do that warrants a different license
> to the one I used.

Err, selecting free software has mostly also been a matter of
 belief  that freedom of information and software is a worthwhile
 goal, and that  the synergy and explosion of stabding on shoulders of
 giants phenomena is worthwhile, and the returns of such a increase in
 cooperation are real -- and to be striven for.

I personally have only exploited but a fraction of the free
  software that is out there, but still believe that  I, and others
  benerift, even if I personally have not been an instrument in all
  such cases.

I am sorry to see you dismiss this as mere ideology; and I am
 sorry that your imagination has not seen what I see.

>> > Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
>> >  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much
>> >  of hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion.
>> It's my opinion, as well.

> And I guess it's not surprising that that means the resultant
> "persuasion" has to be little more than insults.


Pot. Kettle. insults. ideology.

I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
 not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
 documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
 instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
 non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a
 success.

I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not,
 hypocrisy . 

manoj

-- 
My BIOLOGICAL ALARM CLOCK just went off ... It has noiseless DOZE
FUNCTION and full kitchen!!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.  

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
> >  said: 
> > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
> > > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
> > > year.
> > I was not aware  that you were soliciting opinions. If you
> >  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion
> >  after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my
> >  rectitude was implicit approval.
> I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].
> I was willing to get in touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince
> you to relicense the paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found
> the time to do so...

Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual
reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem
to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used.

> > Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
> >  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of
> >  hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. 
> It's my opinion, as well.

And I guess it's not surprising that that means the resultant "persuasion"
has to be little more than insults.

> That is exactly what I meant when I talked about acting "consistently
> with our philosophy" in my reply[2] to Andreas Schuldei (earlier in this
> thread).

Personally, my philosophy is that as many people as possible should
be encouraged to contribute to software, and free licensing (and thus
the DFSG) is an important factor in that. Another important factor is
treating contributors with courtesy and respect -- which at least means
not calling them hypocrites, and at best means trusting them to make
their own decisions on licensing.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
> > non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
> > I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.
> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> distributable.

Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free stuff
from the free stuff. And heck, you could pretty easily come up with a
definition of "free" that's either more strict than Debian (excluding
the advertising clause or dropping the "changes as patches" dispensation,
eg), or more liberal (that would include the Affero license or the GFDL,
perhaps). Neither of those would be inherently unjustifiable, they'd
just be different tradeoffs to what Debian's made. But calling them
"non-free" in some absolute sense just isn't terribly meaningful.

> > >> Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
> > >> stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this
> > >> thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.
> > > Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better
> > > and still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore
> > > should.

I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.

> > I fully disagree, also with your implied assertion that wanting the
> > author to give up more rights than necessary is "better" for the
> > purpose of a conference.
> I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
> is something wrong or inappropriate.

Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights. You might as
well disagree with entropy or conservation of energy.

It's giving up the exclusive rights to control distribution of the
work you created -- in the case of the BSD license, asking nothing but
acknowledgement in return, in the case of copyleft licenses, asking only
that others who contribute to the work do the same. We shouldn't forget
what an enormous act of generosity that is.

> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because

Even if for no other reason, promoting generosity is a wonderful thing.
On the other hand, requiring it isn't -- that becomes an act of
selfishness on our own behalf.

> Papers are (most often) documentation:

No, they're not. Papers are radically different to documentation --
when you write a manpage you don't have to worry about standing up in
front of a hundred people as well.

> I think that, recently, we
> lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.

That's not solved by bundling a paper in with the program; most
particularly because papers are /hard/ to write, and that makes them
hard to update, which in turn makes them obsolescent.

Papers are to help people understand the talk; sometimes they might
do more than that and perhaps even warrant inclusion in the distro,
other times that goal alone is hard enough.

> Hence I want to promote DFSG-free licensing for documentation (and other
> non-program works).

Promoting that's great; promoting it by telling other people to do it
for you and not brooking objections is less so.

> Since the Debian project (luckily) rejects non-free works from its main
> archive, a DEBian CONFerence (isn't that the meaning of DebConf?) seems
> to be the ideal event where to promote DFSG-compliance...

If demanding DFSG-free licenses for papers were a good thing, doing
it at debconf would be an ideal place. I don't think the latter's been
established; and given the organisers don't even fully understand what
good licenses are for recordings of the conference, claiming we already
have all the answers on what makes good licenses for conferences seems
unjustifiable.

> If a paper/presentation/handout is interesting enough (I hope every
> author thinks his/her is, otherwise he/she would not give a talk at
> DebConf!), someone could modify it (in order to update it, improve it,
> translate it into another spoken language, ...) and reuse it (to give a
> talk in another conference, or to build a useful HOWTO, or whatever...).
> This mechanism would enable further spreading of good documentation on
> the subjects we care of.

Sure -- and all those things are possible with certain classes of
non-DFSG-free licenses too.

You might as well have said "If a paper is interesting enough, someone
might want to include it in Debian" -- in which case I'd have to demur;
I don't think my debbugs paper should be included in Debian, because
as interesting as it is, it's stuck in a particular time, that, four
months after the fact, is already obsolete. As far a

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is
>  right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping
>  stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open?

You know, I was going to say something like "fighting, fighting,
fighting; why isn't coding good enough", but to be honest, I don't
really believe that anyway, or I wouldn't be subscribed to this list.

But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up for
our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying to avoid
those issues. Because insisting non-free stuff not appear at debconf seems
like trying to avoid acknowledging its existence in the same manner as
"sweeping stuff under the carpet", rather than having the non-free stuff
appear and trying to convince possibly disagreeable folks that the DFSG's
terms really are worth following no matter what your goals.

The world at large has lots of non-free licenses for content -- if we
wanted to run away from that fact and avoid it, wouldn't we create a
little enclave of our own with guards at the gate telling everyone who
doesn't meet our standards to go back home, in the same way debconf is?

(Hrm, I'm actually not sure why I chose the CC license now; I thought
I remembered the dc5 CFP said papers had to be GPLed or CCed, and that
tweaking all the mindless DFSG bigots by licensing my paper in a way
that's adequately free, yet not DFSG-free would be fun. But the dc5 CC
stuff was actually just for the recordings, afaics, so maybe that wasn't
it, or maybe I was just confused. Oh well)

> > My blog's licensed under the CC No-derivs/non-commerical license for
> > much the same reasons as most of RMS's writings aren't DFSG-free;
> > but that's fine -- I'm not trying to get them to become the basis of
> > a developer community or similar, and that's why I'm not bothered by
> > not having comments on my blog, either.
> And, thankfully, they do not come with the imprimatur of the
>  Debian project, as Debconf seems to.

My blog's aggregated on planet.debian.org; these lists posts (that
aren't explicitly licensed at all, let alone DFSG-freely) are archived
on lists.debian.org, and bug related conversations (which likewise are
generally only implicitly licensed) are archived on bugs.debian.org.

Of these, debconf probably is the one that makes least use of the
"imprimatur of the Debian project", being hosted at debconf.org.

> If Debian lends it names to a compilation of papers
>  distributed by it, such as it may be construed as the compilation
>  product of the Debian project, or in any way part of Debian, we are
>  constrained to have that compilation be free.

In the same way that non-free, which is distributed by DEbian, can be
construed as the product of the Debian project or in any way part of
Debian, then we're constrained to have non-free be free?

That's a deeply erroneous argument, both at a factual level, and as
advocacy.

It's far more effective to advocate for something by demonstrating
you're not prejudiced against the alternatives, and simply in favour
of the best thing winning, and that you, personally, think the best
thing is free software. You not only get your point across, but you
also get to establish that you're not in denial about the strengths of
your opposition and that your judgement and arguments can be listened
to without having to filter out too much self-serving bias.

> If, of course, Debconf is a independent entity, not related to
>  Debian, then I have no opinion, [...]

Which strikes me as odd; personally, I think everyone should be doing
DFSG-free software and free content, whether they're related to Debian
or not. So I wonder if that attitude isn't part of giving up on the fight.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:39:52 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

>>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>>> accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>>> copies.  I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>>> that.

>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.


> As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
> have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.

Hmm. Not as part of Debian. Not on a CD. Indeed, nothing
 officially part of Debian can even depend on such non-free materiel. 

I think if the non-free GR were to be re-raised, I for one
 have changed my mid and would want Debian to not host the non-free
 packages; since I see I was wrong about things being clear about what
 is or is not part of the Debian OS.

>> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner
>> because I want more freedom for the end-users

> It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors
> to do so. But that is something different from saying that papers
> with a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a
> conference simply because their licensing does not live up to your
> ideals.

Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
 requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
 uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
 as enshrined in our social contract, be respected.

If there is ever a collection of papers that appear to be a
 product of the Debian project, or seem to be endorsed by it, I suspect
 we can ask for the spirit of the social contract be not blatantly
 violated. 


If we are talking about organizations unconnected to Debian, or
 ones not using our Mark, than we have no leg to stand on. In that
 case, this thread is off topic here.

> If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
> write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
> furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.


>> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
>> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!  :-|

> We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
> documentation to be distributed in main.

Why should software bits that represent papers be treated any
 differently from software bits that represent documentation or
 software bits that represent code? I have failed to find a rationale
 for such a distinction. 


> They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license
> their software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that
> software in this world exists already and already has whatever
> license its author is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free
> it is great, and it can go into main. If it is not, it can
> (sometimes, guided by purely practical considerations) be
> distributed in non-free.

Wong. We say that such code may go into Debian if and only if
 the license is DFSG free.

manoj
-- 
Fat Liberation: because a waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
>> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
>> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.

> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> distributable.

As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.

> Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main.
> Is this sad?

No. I'm not saying at all that papers that are not DFSG-free should
enter main. What gave you that idea?

> I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
> is something wrong or inappropriate.

I am unable to comprehend why you think there is such an implication.

By licencing things in a DFSG-free manner one needs to give up the
right to prevent others from distributing modified versions of the
work. That is a legal fact, not a matter of opinion.

How you can go from a statement of this legal fact to a value
judgement (which the words "wrong" and "inappropriate" are) is beyond
me.

> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because
> I want more freedom for the end-users

It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors to
do so. But that is something different from saying that papers with
a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a conference
simply because their licensing does not live up to your ideals.

> Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we
> lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.

If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.

> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!   :-|

We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
documentation to be distributed in main.

> These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here...

They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license their
software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that software in
this world exists already and already has whatever license its author
is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free it is great, and it
can go into main. If it is not, it can (sometimes, guided by purely
practical considerations) be distributed in non-free.

>> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be
>> part of an operating system that anybody depends on;

> As has already been replied: "says who?".

Says I. Making the proceedings into a package would be pure archive
bloat. A website is much superior for that purpose.

> Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian.

In those cases we should consider their merits as documentation,
_irrespective_ of whether they are also Debconf papers or not.

A paper that is not DFSG-free cannot be used as documentation - this
holds whether or not it is a Debconf paper, and it does not become
DFSG-free simply by being rejected from Debconf.

>> nobody will have a need to go about changing them.

> Again: "says who?".

Says the laws of physics. The conference proceedings is a record of
what was presented at the conference at a definite moment in the past,
and what happened at that moment is not going to change.

> What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
> document.
> Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted.

And rejecting the paper from the conference is not going to change that.

>> This is a different situation from documentation of code that _is_
>> in the operating system.

> You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and
> documentation in the OS) may overlap.

Of course they may *overlap*. That is fine. But the fact that a paper
is not in the overlap is no reason to reject it.

> What do you think DebConf papers will talk about?

Debian in general. That includes, but is certainly not limited to,
individual pieces of software.

> Papers are generally written *before* the conference takes place, not
> *after* (or does DebConf work the other way around?).
> How can papers talk about "what happened at the conference"?

Because the paper is what is presented at the conference.

>> I don't see how _anyone_ are better served by having an empty slot in
>> the conference instead of a paper, simply because the paper is not
>> modifiable.

> If you see how users are better served by having a non-free package
> moved out of main and possibly not distributed at all by the Debian
> infrastructure (e

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
> 
> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.

Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
distributable.
Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main.
Is this sad?
Quite the opposite, IMHO.

> 
> >> Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
> >> stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this
> >> thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.
> 
> > Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better
> > and still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore
> > should.
> 
> I fully disagree, also with your implied assertion that wanting the
> author to give up more rights than necessary is "better" for the
> purpose of a conference.

I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
"giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
is something wrong or inappropriate.

I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because
I want more freedom for the end-users (conference attendees *and* the
rest of the planet: remember that the papers will be published
somewhere, otherwise there's no use in writing them, since the speakers
are going to give a talk on their subject, not to publicly *read* their
papers!).

Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we
lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.
Hence I want to promote DFSG-free licensing for documentation (and other
non-program works).
Since the Debian project (luckily) rejects non-free works from its main
archive, a DEBian CONFerence (isn't that the meaning of DebConf?) seems
to be the ideal event where to promote DFSG-compliance...

> 
> > It was merely a statement that no one is forcing anyone to license
> > their works in a particular manner, merely that the organizers
> > (which to avoid confusion, doesn't include me) of the conference
> > determine what the minimal set of permisions they need to do their
> > jobs is. [Not that you should take your ball and go home.[1] ;-)]
> 
> You and Fransesco appear to want the conference organizers to require
> _more_ permissions than what they have already decided are the minimal
> set of permissions they need to do their job.

Yes, in order to give enough permissions to the end-users to call the
papers DFSG-free.
If a paper/presentation/handout is interesting enough (I hope every
author thinks his/her is, otherwise he/she would not give a talk at
DebConf!), someone could modify it (in order to update it, improve it,
translate it into another spoken language, ...) and reuse it (to give a
talk in another conference, or to build a useful HOWTO, or whatever...).
This mechanism would enable further spreading of good documentation on
the subjects we care of.

Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!   :-|
These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here...
How could we arrive to the point I have to explicitly state them?  :-(

> 
> And I cannot see any argument that a conference needs more permission
> than the right to distribute verbatim copies of the papers and
> presentations.

I believe to have just presented one of the arguments.

> 
> > I assume that the right thing is having the works licensed under a
> > DFSG free license; granted, we've disagreed on numerous occasions
> > whether that truly is the right thing or not...
> 
> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be
> part of an operating system that anybody depends on;

As has already been replied: "says who?".
Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian.
Why not?

> nobody will have
> a need to go about changing them.

Again: "says who?".
Many typos and mistakes may be fixed.
Some parts may be improved.
Some parts may be updated, as time goes on.
What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
document.

Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted.

> This is a different situation from
> documentation of code that _is_ in the operating system.

You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and
documentation in the OS) may overlap.
And that a member of one set may be modified enough (if legal permission
is granted) to become member of the other set.

> Documentation
> has to be kept up to date as the software it documents changes;

What do you think DebConf papers will talk about?
Cooking?
Or rather Debian-related software?

I would say more often the latter than the former...  ;

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:36:39 +0100, Andreas Schuldei
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
  
> do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own, when
> we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas (among
> others). will we only permit ideas from people that already share
> out view of DFSG-free?


Err, Why not? Why are software bits that represent a talk at a
 conference treated any differently than software bits that represent
 documentation or software bits that represent executable software?

This line of argument you are using reminds me of the faction
 of Alex Yukhimets. That was a vocal group of developers back in '96
 and '97, and espoused the idea that in order to be the best OS ever,
 and to maximize our utility to the users, we should not just permit
 software from people that shared our views.

Indeed, the argument goes, in order to maximize utility to end
 users (as opposed to middlemen repackaging our product), Debian
 should be stuffed as full of software as possible, even if installing
 a Debian OS  was a slew of click through EULA's. 

As any one connect with Debian would know (unless they have
 been in a closet for the best part of the last decade), that we
 rejected the view that sheer utilitarianism and convenience and even
 participation from non-free software authors transcended our views and
 commitment to the freedom of information, and software.

Would you care to expound why the same criteria that extends
 to software bits representing documentation, code, executable, etc,
 should not extend to the software bits representing conference
 papers? How is the community not harmed by having non-free papers but
 not harmed by having non-free code? non-free documentation?

manoj
-- 
You will win success in whatever calling you adopt.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
>  said: 
[...]
> > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
> > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
> > year.

I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].

I was willing to get in touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince
you to relicense the paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found
the time to do so...

> 
> I was not aware  that you were soliciting opinions. If you
>  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion
>  after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my
>  rectitude was implicit approval.
[...]
> > and the advocacy and arguments about the DFSG are more likely to
> > have a long term effect than the license on any paper presented at a
> > conference.
> 
> Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
>  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of
>  hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. 

It's my opinion, as well.
That is exactly what I meant when I talked about acting "consistently
with our philosophy" in my reply[2] to Andreas Schuldei (earlier in this
thread).

[1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4



pgpFjISHdE7aF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Andreas Schuldei]

sorry for replying to this only today. i had been busy preparing
for a talk i was giving yesterday at a conf. 

* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-10 01:08:49]:
> > given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle
> > things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that
> > you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest.
> 
> First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create
> unrest.
> If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to.
> I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong
> words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have
> misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers).

no, you could have asked on the debconf6-team mailinglist, for
example. trying to get the largest possible audience by sending
this to d-d and d-l is both addressing the wrong audience and
trying to raising a stink.


> I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant
> information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself.
> If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about
> how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would
> appreciate it.

you could have look at the archives of the debconf6-team
mailinglist where in
http://liw.iki.fi/lists/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00169.html
it says 

"btw, the licence situation (of the talks and videos) will be
taken care of in COMAS (our conference management system)
directly, something like "people who'll commit talks will have to
choose a (proper) licence at commit time"."

the current plan is to have a drop down menu where people can
choose the license they want, very much like when they chose a
license for an alioth project.

> I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you
> privately (end of last August), 

yes, then you complained about the way the license and
distribution of the talks had been handled, that they were not
available from the debconf.org server any more (due to a
breakin). That is how i perceived it, at least. you did not make
any constructive suggestions at any point. (and how could you,
only refering to debconf5?)

> I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you
> can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to
> Debian, to be held in a different place each time.
> That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is
> an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our
> philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with
> our philosophy, IMHO.

do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own,
when we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas
(among others). will we only permit ideas from people that
already share out view of DFSG-free?

> > You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker
> > surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license,
> 
> If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think
> the only option for the organizers is to not include the
> paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not
> distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue
> is solved.
> Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy
> requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them).

yes, and i guess it will have consequences when speakers choose a
non-free lisenese for their talk. It will reduce their chances to
get a slot.

> > or declares before the audience that his
> > talk must not be distributed.
> 
> In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference
> website or in the proceedings.
> But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license.
> 
> Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors:

the point is that the authors can violate the (informal)
agreement given on the website and in a last minute action
deliver a talk with an other license then aggreed uppon. We (the
lynch mob) could wrestle down the speaker, beat her up, smash her
notebook and carry her outside for further treatment, i guess. or
something similar. (c:

(attention! joke!)


> | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
> | used in conjunction with the presentation.
> 
> Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not
> fulfill the C4P requirements.
> Correct me, if I'm wrong.

and so we do (c:

they are not very specific, so far, though.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously
>> > correct, why force people to do it? If some people are
>> > uncomfortable with it, why fight that?
>> Even within Debian, it's become clear to me that, if we want
>> DFSG-free things, it has to be mandatory and enforced,

> Of course, within Debian DFSG-freeness isn't mandatory or enforced:
> you can upload to non-free instead of main just by tweaking your
> control file.

I am sure you are aware that is not part of Debian. Perhaps it
 was wring not to throw non-free archives  off Debian machines, if
 such confusion is rampant.

> And that lack of compulsion, coupled with a fairly strong
> endorsement of DFSG-free content has resulted in DFSG-free software
> making up 98% of unstable.

And 100% of Debian.

> I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
> non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
> year.

I was not aware  that you were soliciting opinions. If you
 are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion
 after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my
 rectitude was implicit approval.

> There's no actual requirement for debate there either, the people
> who want to license their paper in non-DFSG-free way can happily
> leave the last word to the DFSG advocates because they don't have to
> debate to get their way;

Only if they want their papers in a collection which is
 actually part of Debian, they do too.

> and the advocacy and arguments about the DFSG are more likely to
> have a long term effect than the license on any paper presented at a
> conference.

Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
 accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of
 hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. 

manoj

-- 
You have the power to influence all with whom you come in contact.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we
>> pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main".  I care about
>> starving children, but I don't donate the majority of every check
>> to feed them: there are lots of good causes, and the fact that
>> everybody has to pick and choose their causes doesn't mean people
>> "don't care enough".  (That said, I don't agree with that response:
>> it should be no big deal for people to freely license their papers,
>> so they can be packaged later in Debian.  This isn't a big,
>> difficult fight.)

> Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct,
> why force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it,
> why fight that?

Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is
 right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping
 stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open?

While I am undecided how much I am willing to fight for DFSG
 freeness, and not sending people the message that Debian only fights
 for DFSG freeness when it is other peoepls free documentation, and
 blithely accepts whatever goes when it comes to their own
 convenience, I must voice my objection to this line of argument (why
 make waves? the misguided folks will come to see the crrect argument
 and do the right thing after all [Hello, Kansas Board of
 Education]).

> My blog's licensed under the CC No-derivs/non-commerical license for
> much the same reasons as most of RMS's writings aren't DFSG-free;
> but that's fine -- I'm not trying to get them to become the basis of
> a developer community or similar, and that's why I'm not bothered by
> not having comments on my blog, either.

And, thankfully, they do not come with the imprimatur of the
 Debian project, as Debconf seems to.

> I'd prefer something like this:

>  During and after the conference various materials will be made
>  available to attendees and the general public; submission of a
>  paper thus indicates permission to:

> * distribute verbatim copies and translations of the paper,
>   slides and other materials provided by the presenter

> * distribute audio and video recordings of the presentation

>  Presenters are encouraged to provide a specific license (preferably
>  DFSG-free) under which the materials and presentation can be
>  redistributed.

If Debian lends it names to a compilation of papers
 distributed by it, such as it may be construed as the compilation
 product of the Debian project, or in any way part of Debian, we are
 constrained to have that compilation be free.

If, of course, Debconf is a independent entity, not related to
 Debian, then I have no opinion, apart from isn't this off-topic here
 on this mailing list?

manoj
-- 
The truth about a man lies first and foremost in what he hides. Andre
Malraux
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:26:52 +1000, Anthony Towns
 said:  

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> [If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not
>> presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.]

> *sigh*

> Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away"
> already? How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy
> to at least consider their concerns, and enough respect to believe
> that they're scrupulous enough that they'll do the right thing even
> without being forced? Or, for that matter, having the flexibility to
> accept that sometimes the right thing changes depending on the
> situation?

Err, if this compilation is a project Debian product, or is
 associated with us, then it seems like we are doing to presentation
 software bits what we ask of producers of other kinds of software
 bits: If you want it to be part of debian, you must ship all them
 software bits under a license we deem free.

Why are presentation 0's and 1-s any different from executable
 0's and 1's, or documentation 0's and 1's ?

Again, if debconf is not related to debian, than none of this
 applies, and in that case, can we take this off a mailing list for
 Debian development?

manoj
-- 
We're living in a golden age.  All you need is gold. D.W. Robertson.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Glenn Maynard]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:46:24AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of course, within Debian DFSG-freeness isn't mandatory or enforced: you
> can upload to non-free instead of main just by tweaking your control file.

The response is predictable, but here it is anyway: non-free isn't within
Debian; Debian mandates DFSG-freeness.  The practical impact of that is
lessened due to the ease at which people can add non-free to their sources;
but if it's not fundamentally true, then SC#1 needs serious reinforcement.

> The hard part isn't finding the people, it's convincing them that a
> DFSG-free license is best. That's why pine and qmail remain in non-free
> even though we know exactly who their authors are. Or, for that matter,
> most of RMS's writings are still licensed in a non-DFSG-free manner.

UW, DJB and RMS may be fairly extreme examples of people who are difficult
to convince.  :)

> No, it's not. In this case, I'd much rather be in a position where I
> can argue for making things DFSG-free when I can see enough specifics
> to think of good reasons why that woul dbe okay, and remain silent in
> the cases where I don't think that's a win.

It's usually so easy to find reasons why DFSG-freeness is a good thing,
I tend to assume they exist by default.  So, I see it the other way around:
things should be DFSG-free unless I can see enough specifics to think of
good reasons why they shouldn't be.

> I don't think remaining silent when people are being pressured to do
> things that don't seem right is a good option though, so instead I find
> myself arguing against the DFSG.

I don't understand how licensing papers DFSG-freely way "doesn't seem right".

Incidentally, I care less about papers than many other things, so I'm not
going to spend much effort to try to convince people to DFSG-free them;
however, I'm a bit interested to understand the rationale behind not wanting
to, from people who are beyond "I don't want people putting words in my
mouth" responses.  (But I understand not wanting to spend time arguing
*against* DFSG-freeness.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Don Armstrong]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
> > submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; 
> 
> OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal permission they
> actually need to do their job.

Often; but they're not mutually exclusive. [At least in the academic
world, it's not all that unusual for publishers to require a
non-exclusive, unlimited copyright license to the work; I think a
requirement that material be DFSG free is substantially more
reasonable than that, and better aligned with the goals of debconf.]
 
> > if you plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material
> > you present should be expected so portions of the work can be
> > utilized in main or otherwise distributed by Debian if desired.
> 
> Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
> stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this
> thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.

Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better and
still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore should.

> > [If this poses a problem,[1] you always have the option of not
> > presenting, or presenting your work in an informal session.]
> 
> Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away"
> already?

It was merely a statement that no one is forcing anyone to license
their works in a particular manner, merely that the organizers (which
to avoid confusion, doesn't include me) of the conference determine
what the minimal set of permisions they need to do their jobs is. [Not
that you should take your ball and go home.[1] ;-)]

> How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy to at
> least consider their concerns,

I assume that's what is being done here... correct me if I'm wrong.

> and enough respect to believe that they're scrupulous enough that
> they'll do the right thing even without being forced?

I assume that the right thing is having the works licensed under a
DFSG free license; granted, we've disagreed on numerous occasions
whether that truly is the right thing or not... 

> Huh? Copyleft == you can't restrict other people from redistributing
> and making further modifications.

I tend lump both legal and technical means of restriction together, so
I automatically assume that copyleft implies the distribution of the
prefered form for modification; in any case, dealing with the licenses
below will make the distribution of the DVDs containing the talks a
bit more difficult... as the people actually making the recording and
digitizing it are doing the majority of the work for it, presumably
they are in the best position to determine the licences for the
recording.


Don Armstrong

1: At least, not until I kick it over the fence for you. ;-)
-- 
 why the hell does kernel-source-2.6.3 depend on xfree86-common?
 It... Doesn't?
 good point

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:00:55AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
> > force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
> > fight that?
> Even within Debian, it's become clear to me that, if we want DFSG-free
> things, it has to be mandatory and enforced,

Of course, within Debian DFSG-freeness isn't mandatory or enforced: you
can upload to non-free instead of main just by tweaking your control file.

And that lack of compulsion, coupled with a fairly strong endorsement
of DFSG-free content has resulted in DFSG-free software making up 98%
of unstable.

> My point was that this isn't a big fight: these are papers, typically
> written by one person, who is probably in all cases immediately, easily
> contactable; not software with dozens of copyright holders, or written
> by companies feeling their commercial interests threatened.  Compared
> to the battles underlying a lot of attempts to get free licenses, this
> is easy.

The hard part isn't finding the people, it's convincing them that a
DFSG-free license is best. That's why pine and qmail remain in non-free
even though we know exactly who their authors are. Or, for that matter,
most of RMS's writings are still licensed in a non-DFSG-free manner.

> > BTW, a question: if you say "you must make your stuff DFSG-free",
> > aren't you inspiring debate from people who don't want to, or who aren't
> > comfortable with that, on why the DFSG isn't appropriate? If you made it
> > optional or encouraged instead of compulsory, wouldn't that encourage
> > debate on why the DFSG is good in the specific instances where people
> > choose not to use free licenses? Wouldn't that be better?
> All it's doing is shifting who has to start the debate:

No, it's not. In this case, I'd much rather be in a position where I
can argue for making things DFSG-free when I can see enough specifics
to think of good reasons why that woul dbe okay, and remain silent in
the cases where I don't think that's a win.

I don't think remaining silent when people are being pressured to do
things that don't seem right is a good option though, so instead I find
myself arguing against the DFSG.

> in the optional
> case, the people who think all of the papers should be free will debate
> the cases that weren't; 

I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui) non-DFSG-free
CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this year.

There's no actual requirement for debate there either, the people who
want to license their paper in non-DFSG-free way can happily leave the
last word to the DFSG advocates because they don't have to debate to get
their way; and the advocacy and arguments about the DFSG are more likely
to have a long term effect than the license on any paper presented at
a conference.

> and in the compulsory case, the people who think
> papers shouldn't have to be free will debate theirs.

Which, to my mind, means it's a real, substantive win to not give people
any reason to make this argument. 

At the very least, I'm getting really tired of having to have my desire
for tolerance of other people's choices and individual freedoms trump
my desire to argue for the DFSG freedoms everywhere.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:49:21AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
> submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; 

OTOH, conferences usually ask for the minimal permission they actually
need to do their job.

> if you
> plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material you present
> should be expected so portions of the work can be utilized in main or
> otherwise distributed by Debian if desired. 

Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this thread),
stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.

> [If this poses a
> problem,[1] you always have the option of not presenting, or
> presenting your work in an informal session.]

*sigh*

Does this really have to devolve to "if you don't like it, go away"
already? How about showing your potential speakers enough courtesy to
at least consider their concerns, and enough respect to believe that
they're scrupulous enough that they'll do the right thing even without
being forced? Or, for that matter, having the flexibility to accept that
sometimes the right thing changes depending on the situation?

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Of course, "DFSG-free" isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting
> > on, but the right to MIT/X11 recordings of presentations too -- not
> > even giving presenters the option to copyleft the recording of their
> > presentation for some reason.
> This is primarily pragmatic, since there's no clear consensus on what
> the prefered form for modification for a video is, or even what it
> means to copyleft a video. 

Huh? Copyleft == you can't restrict other people from redistributing and
making further modifications. As an example: someone downloads the
debconf presentations, culls various tidbits from them and puts them
together in a "dos and don'ts of technical presentations", then sells
the new video for $5 a pop online, and refuses to allow people who
purchase it to modify or redistribute it.

Example copyleft licenses for videos include the CC ShareAlike licenses,
the GFDL, the OPL, and the GPL. TTBOMK, of those, only the GPL talks about
"preferred form for modification".

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:26:58 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we
> > pick our battle, and our battle is Debian main".  I care about
> > starving children, but I don't donate the majority of every check to
> > feed them: there are lots of good causes, and the fact that
> > everybody has to pick and choose their causes doesn't mean people
> > "don't care enough".  (That said, I don't agree with that response:
> > it should be no big deal for people to freely license their papers,
> > so they can be packaged later in Debian.  This isn't a big,
> > difficult fight.)
> 
> Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct,
> why force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it,
> why fight that?

I wish it were obvious to everyone, but apparently it's not.
Otherwise there would not be so much non-free documentation around and
we would not have to deal with its (wrong) presence in Debian main...

Try to think what it would mean to Debian, if your above-quoted "don't
fight" philosophy were applied to the Debian distribution. There would
be no separate sections of the archive (main, contrib, and non-free
would be all merged in one melting pot of works): there are already many
GNU/Linux distros that do so... Fortunately Debian is different.

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgp8gxPUNgnZ7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Glenn Maynard]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:26:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
> force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
> fight that?

Even within Debian, it's become clear to me that, if we want DFSG-free
things, it has to be mandatory and enforced, since there are people in
Debian who care about the "create a good operating system" part, but
less about the "create a free operating system" detail[1].

My point was that this isn't a big fight: these are papers, typically
written by one person, who is probably in all cases immediately, easily
contactable; not software with dozens of copyright holders, or written
by companies feeling their commercial interests threatened.  Compared
to the battles underlying a lot of attempts to get free licenses, this
is easy.

I don't mean that it's "obviously correct" in the sense that people
will do it anyway or agree without a debate.  Both the "documentation
should be free" threads and the firmware threads, among others, have
shown me that no matter how obvious it may seem to me that something
should be free, people will disagree.  :)

> BTW, a question: if you say "you must make your stuff DFSG-free",
> aren't you inspiring debate from people who don't want to, or who aren't
> comfortable with that, on why the DFSG isn't appropriate? If you made it
> optional or encouraged instead of compulsory, wouldn't that encourage
> debate on why the DFSG is good in the specific instances where people
> choose not to use free licenses? Wouldn't that be better?

All it's doing is shifting who has to start the debate: in the optional
case, the people who think all of the papers should be free will debate
the cases that weren't; and in the compulsory case, the people who think
papers shouldn't have to be free will debate theirs.

Both of these are after the fact.  What should happen is what is happening:
debate the issue in advance, and make a decision based on that.


[1] To be clear, I'm not thinking of anyone in this conversation.

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Don Armstrong]

It's not all that unusual for conferences to require that the material
submitted for the conference be licensed in a specific manner; if you
plan on presenting, some DFSG free license of the material you present
should be expected so portions of the work can be utilized in main or
otherwise distributed by Debian if desired. [If this poses a
problem,[1] you always have the option of not presenting, or
presenting your work in an informal session.]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Of course, "DFSG-free" isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting
> on, but the right to MIT/X11 recordings of presentations too -- not
> even giving presenters the option to copyleft the recording of their
> presentation for some reason.

This is primarily pragmatic, since there's no clear consensus on what
the prefered form for modification for a video is, or even what it
means to copyleft a video. [If you have a clear idea of what it means,
you could communicate it to the organizers...]


Don Armstrong

1: I'd be rather surprised if it did; but then again, I've been
suprised before.
-- 
Any excuse will serve a tyrant.
 -- Aesop

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:49:36PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we pick
> our battle, and our battle is Debian main".  I care about starving children,
> but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots
> of good causes, and the fact that everybody has to pick and choose their
> causes doesn't mean people "don't care enough".  (That said, I don't agree
> with that response: it should be no big deal for people to freely license
> their papers, so they can be packaged later in Debian.  This isn't a big,
> difficult fight.)

Why fight at all? If having a free license is so obviously correct, why
force people to do it? If some people are uncomfortable with it, why
fight that?

My blog's licensed under the CC No-derivs/non-commerical license for much
the same reasons as most of RMS's writings aren't DFSG-free; but that's
fine -- I'm not trying to get them to become the basis of a developer
community or similar, and that's why I'm not bothered by not having
comments on my blog, either.

Likewise my list posts (like this one) don't have any explicit license,
just the implied license that evolves from knowingly posting to public
mailing lists -- which gives people the right to quote and archive them,
and the occassional fair use right, but certainly not enough to qualify
for main in the strictest sense.

My debbugs paper was licensed under the CC Attrib/ShareAlike license,
which is relatively free, but also not DFSG-free apparently. OTOH, it's
also already out of date.

Of course, "DFSG-free" isn't all the dc6 organisers are insisting on, but
the right to MIT/X11 recordings of presentations too -- not even giving
presenters the option to copyleft the recording of their presentation
for some reason.

BTW, a question: if you say "you must make your stuff DFSG-free",
aren't you inspiring debate from people who don't want to, or who aren't
comfortable with that, on why the DFSG isn't appropriate? If you made it
optional or encouraged instead of compulsory, wouldn't that encourage
debate on why the DFSG is good in the specific instances where people
choose not to use free licenses? Wouldn't that be better?

I'd prefer something like this:

 During and after the conference various materials will be made available
 to attendees and the general public; submission of a paper thus indicates
 permission to:

* distribute verbatim copies and translations of the paper, slides
  and other materials provided by the presenter

* distribute audio and video recordings of the presentation

 Presenters are encouraged to provide a specific license (preferably
 DFSG-free) under which the materials and presentation can be
 redistributed.

Having the video/slide license appear as the first slide at each talk
while the introduction's happening might be amusing. But not if it's
just the BSD license each time :)

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Glenn Maynard]

(FWIW, this is probably more of a d-project thing; d-legal is more about
figuring out whether licenses are free and safe.)

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 12:24:58AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.

Why not (and "says who")?  If they're worth anything at all, they sure seem
like a decent thing to want to package--much more so than a lot of what
seems to be packaged these days.

> I cannot fully understand why, but I take note of it.
> Are you concerned that less papers would be submitted to DebConf6 with
> such a rule?
> In case you are: why aren't you similarly concerned that less packages
> will be distributed in main, if we care "too much" about Freeness
> issues?

His argument appears to be "we don't *have* to do this, therefore we
shouldn't", which isn't much of an argument.  (FWIW, I don't have a strong
opinion either way; I just happen to find Henning's arguments--at least,
those you've quoted--to be empty.)

FYI, a possible response might be: "we care about freeness, but we pick
our battle, and our battle is Debian main".  I care about starving children,
but I don't donate the majority of every check to feed them: there are lots
of good causes, and the fact that everybody has to pick and choose their
causes doesn't mean people "don't care enough".  (That said, I don't agree
with that response: it should be no big deal for people to freely license
their papers, so they can be packaged later in Debian.  This isn't a big,
difficult fight.)

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 12:25:11 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf
> > is an event through which we get public attention and can thus
> > spread our philosophy. The message really works better if we act
> > consistently with our philosophy, IMHO.
> 
> We do not have a philosophy that says that everything ought to be
> DFSG-free.

Do you think that a DebConf with more non-free papers and less DFSG-free
ones would be a better conference?

> 
> We have a philosophy that says that we only distribute things in main
> if they are DFSG-free. That is a different thing.

I know, but why do we accept things in main only if they are DFSG-free?
For a dogmatic adherence to rules written by others?
Or rather for reasons that we consider as good ones and that lead to the
rules detailed in the SC?
I think the same reasons lead to think that papers should be accepted at
a DebConf only if they are DFSG-free.

> 
> > Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy
> > requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them).
> 
> DebConf papers will not be distributed in main.

They are not, currently.
That's why I said "like" and haven't filed any serious bug against the
non-existent debconf-papers package...

However, for the future, who knows?
Someone could ITP some papers, maybe. At that point only the DFSG-free
ones will be able to go in main. It will be better, if there are more of
them.

> 
> > Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors:
> 
> > | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> > | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual
> > | materials used in conjunction with the presentation.
> 
> And this requirement would be a no-op under your theory that a
> DFSG-free license for the papers is required. Therefore I conclude
> that your theory is wrong.

Which theory?
Mine is a suggestion, not a theory.
If it's accepted, the C4P will obviously be modified and will drop the
non-exclusive publication rights requirement (as it is actually implied
by the DFSG-compliance requirement that I'm suggesting).

> 
> > What I suggest is simply adding one further condition.
> 
> For the record, I oppose this suggestion.

I cannot fully understand why, but I take note of it.
Are you concerned that less papers would be submitted to DebConf6 with
such a rule?
In case you are: why aren't you similarly concerned that less packages
will be distributed in main, if we care "too much" about Freeness
issues?

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpFpEKqbvRNG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:02:22 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

> [I tried to crosspost this between -legal and -devel, but apparently
> it never arrived on -legal. Resending...]

Thanks.

>
> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no
> > license means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a
> > DebConf is really a shame?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Remember that non-free != evil, and that some of the arguments why
> free software is a good thing do not apply to expositions of scholary
> work or other conference contributions.

IMHO, papers to be presented at a conference are documents (often pieces
of documentation) that can (technically) be read, studied, adapted,
copied, redistributed and improved by other people.
In a manner much similar to computer programs.
I think that /legally/ allowing the above operations is a good thing for
both programs and papers (and many other works of authorship).

Are we restarting the "documentation is (not) software" discussion?
Again?
I hope we are not...   ;-)

> 
> People who think that intellectual property is in and of itself an
> evil concept are free to license their contributions liberally.

I don't think that (all) free software developers see "intellectual
property" in and of itself as an evil concept.
However, I would rather avoid the term "intellectual property"...

> But
> on the other hand, people who like free software for pragmatic reasons
> related to its being, well, software should not be forced to give away
> more rights than practically necessary for making the conference work.

Most of those "pragmatic reasons" apply to conference papers too, IMHO.
Anyway, nobody is forced to give a talk at DebConf6, hence nobody would
be forced to publish a DebConf paper in a DFSG-free manner (even if my
suggestion were accepted).

I mean: some constraints *need* to be put for a DebConf anyway.
For instance non-exclusive publication rights are already required.
Moreover the topic of the paper cannot be arbitrarily chosen: would you
accept a paper about the proprietary Microsoft tools used to deploy a
Microsoft network? or about medieval history?

What I suggest is just adding another (good, IMHO) constraint.

> 
> For example, it is common not to want to allow derived works for
> conference papers.

It is also common to require high fees for attending international
congresses and conferences.
DebConf is not doing this, though (fortunately: a big thanks to all the
sponsors!).

It is also common not to want to allow derived works for computer
programs (see e.g. Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, Apple, Oracle, ...).
Debian developers do not contribute to Debian this way, though.

> That does not conflict with the SC, because the
> papers are not going to be part of our operating system.

I'm perfectly aware that we are not talking about SC violations.
But complying with the SC is not the *only* good thing that DDs can
do...  :-)

Moreover, I don't see a good reason to consider packaging DebConf papers
for inclusion in Debian as an absurd idea.
It could be done and could be useful.
After all, we currently have several Linux Gazette issues in (sarge's)
main: they have licensing problems, but if they hadn't any, I would have
nothing against their presence in main. 

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4


pgpQygxemupEi.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Francesco Poli]

[replying to a message that was directed to debian-devel only, but
readding debian-legal in Cc:]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:38:07 +0100 Andreas Schuldei wrote:

> * Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-08 00:28:07]:
> > "The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license" means
> > that they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct?
> > 
> > IMHO, DebConf paper authors should be *required* to publish in a
> > DFSG-free manner, as a condition for presenting at the conference.
> > 
> > Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no
> > license means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a
> > DebConf is really a shame?
> 
> given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle
> things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that
> you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest.

First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create
unrest.
If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to.
I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong
words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have
misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers).

> 
> So please inform yourself properly first.

I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant
information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself.
If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about
how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would
appreciate it.

> that might include to
> take up the issue in a friendly way with someone who is involved

I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you
privately (end of last August), but unfortunately the thread died out...
Now your C4P for DebConf6 reminded me of the issue, so I went through it
as carefully as I could searching for any indication on how it was
handled.
I found the above-quoted sentence ("The authors have the freedom to pick
a DFSG-free license") and felt it was not clear enough (again I am not
an English native speaker, but many many people are not either).

That is why I asked for clarification and, in case the sentence means
what I'm afraid it does, I suggested a different policy...


As to the friendliness, I tried hard to be as polite and friendly as I
could. Again, if I failed, it's my fault: I apologize.

I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you
can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to
Debian, to be held in a different place each time.
That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is
an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our
philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with
our philosophy, IMHO.


> or trying to submit a proposal, paper or even give a talk
> yourself.

I really doubt I will be able to attend DebConf6, unfortunately.  :-(

> 
> You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker
> surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license,

If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think
the only option for the organizers is to not include the
paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not
distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue
is solved.
Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy
requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them).

> double-licenses his talk in an awkward way

If you mean "dual-licenses", then everything's fine as long as at least
one of the chosen licenses makes the paper/presentation/handout
DFSG-free.
Otherwise, goto previous case.  ;-)

> or declares before the audience that his
> talk must not be distributed.

In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference
website or in the proceedings.
But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license.

Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors:

| Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
| presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
| used in conjunction with the presentation.

Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not
fulfill the C4P requirements.
Correct me, if I'm wrong.

> 
> Also consider the legal implications of an intention or promise
> to release a DFSG free talk vs the actual act of releasing the
> work and when that happens in a legally binding way. Then
> consider the character of the CFP as a legaly binding document
> for the licenses of the actual talks of the speakers.

As I said above, the publication of papers/presentations/handouts is
anyway subject to some conditions.
What I suggest is simply adding one further condition.

I hope I clarified what I mean...

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli   

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license
> means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a DebConf is
> really a shame?

I don't.

Remember that non-free != evil, and that some of the arguments why
free software is a good thing do not apply to expositions of scholary
work or other conference contributions.

People who think that intellectual property is in and of itself an
evil concept are free to license their contributions liberally.  But
on the other hand, people who like free software for pragmatic reasons
related to its being, well, software should not be forced to give away
more rights than practically necessary for making the conference work.

For example, it is common not to want to allow derived works for
conference papers. That does not conflict with the SC, because the
papers are not going to be part of our operating system.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Det er jo svært at vide noget når man ikke ved det, ikke?"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-08 00:28:07]:
> "The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license" means that
> they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct?
> 
> IMHO, DebConf paper authors should be *required* to publish in a
> DFSG-free manner, as a condition for presenting at the conference.
> 
> Don't you agree that seeing non-free or even undistributable (no license
> means "All Rights Reserved", with current laws!) papers at a DebConf is
> really a shame?

given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle
things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that
you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest.

So please inform yourself properly first. that might include to
take up the issue in a friendly way with someone who is involved
or trying to submit a proposal, paper or even give a talk
yourself.

You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker
surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license, double-licenses his
talk in an awkward way or declares before the audience that his
talk must not be distributed.

Also consider the legal implications of an intention or promise
to release a DFSG free talk vs the actual act of releasing the
work and when that happens in a legally binding way. Then
consider the character of the CFP as a legaly binding document
for the licenses of the actual talks of the speakers.

But please do so alone, first.

/andreas


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: OT: Humor: Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Brian M. Carlson]

On Tuesday 08 November 2005 01:58 am, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
> > The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as
> > it's DFSG-free".  Do you see how it could be read that way?
>
> You sound just like Henry Ford.

My goal was to do exactly that.  I was hoping someone would catch it. :-)

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Running on GNU/kFreeBSD; i686-pc-kfreebsd-gnu
Support alternative kernels in Debian!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

OT: Humor: Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Adam Heath]

On Tue, 8 Nov 2005, Brian M. Carlson wrote:

> The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's
> DFSG-free".  Do you see how it could be read that way?

You sound just like Henry Ford.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Brian M. Carlson]

On Monday 07 November 2005 11:28 pm, Francesco Poli wrote:
> [Added Cc: debian-legal, because the topic may be of interest there,
> I would say.]
> [No need to Cc: me, as long as you keep Cc:ing debian-legal (just to
> make things clear: I am subscribed to debian-legal, but not to
> debian-devel)]
> > used in conjunction with the presentation. The authors have the
> > freedom to pick a DFSG-free license for the papers themselves and
> > retain all copyrights.
>
> "The authors have the freedom to pick a DFSG-free license" means that
> they *may* do so, but are not required to. Am I correct?

The way I read it was that "the authors may pick any license, so long as it's 
DFSG-free".  Do you see how it could be read that way?

Now, because they are the copyright holders, they could additionally license 
it in some other way, too.  But they must at least offer a DFSG-free license.

-- 
Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Running on GNU/kFreeBSD; i686-pc-kfreebsd-gnu
Support alternative kernels in Debian!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]