Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 15:41, Branden Robinson wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Not so! On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. As I recall, Debian postdates 1941. Is this a joke? FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's. Yes, of course it's a joke! I was inspired by the Neuromancer comment earlier in the thread. Incidentally, I once went to a summer camp which had not only FDR's Four Freedoms, but also the Fifth Freedom, being freedom to run around naked. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you, fuck off, and fuck yourself. I will cheerfully admit to being wrong when I've been convinced of such, and if I feel an apology is deserved, will offer one. On the other hand, if you think that you can convince me simply by giving me the benefit of your charming repartee, rapier-sharp wit, or brilliant thought, guess again. But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine, and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the discretion available to us. We could decide to refuse to distribute any software with a prime number of characters in any source file. We get to be as arbitrary and perverse as we wish. We do what we do because we think it advances the cause of free software and our users' interests, and not because someone from OSD tries to tell us which software we should distribute. Thomas
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine, and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the discretion available to us. Some people think there should be one and only one definition/guideline/understanding of what comprises free software. We've got one, you've got another, RMS has a third. Wouldn't it be a good thing if there was less dissention in our community? We do what we do because we think it advances the cause of free software and our users' interests, and not because someone from OSD tries to tell us which software we should distribute. What's OSD? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine, and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the discretion available to us. Some people think there should be one and only one definition/guideline/understanding of what comprises free software. We've got one, you've got another, RMS has a third. Wouldn't it be a good thing if there was less dissention in our community? Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:21:41AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: But why should we bother trying to convince you anymore? What advantage is their? Why should we bother proving to you that our internal processes meet your tests of rationality? They suit us fine, and this is about what *we* choose to do, using the discretion available to us. Some people think there should be one and only one definition/guideline/understanding of what comprises free software. We've got one, you've got another, RMS has a third. Wouldn't it be a good thing if there was less dissention in our community? Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were always the basis of the DFSG. I merely thought that the DFSG exists to codify these concepts and make them more concrete. Sort of like a checklist so we don't forget anything. What might be a useful thing to do is start adding appendices to the DFSG with examples of how we have interpreted certain sections. (With valid, and invalid arguments in each.) It should be made very clear that these examples are merely to clarify the opinions of debian-legal, and are in no way binding. Simon
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote: To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you, fuck off, and fuck yourself. Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad, bad hair, obnoxious attitude. Back under the bridge with you! *plonk* -- Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0 Technology Coordinator Center for Educational Outcomes at Dartmouth College
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were always the basis of the DFSG. I merely thought that the DFSG exists to codify these concepts and make them more concrete. Sort of like a checklist so we don't forget anything. I think the DFSG actually predates the FSF's codification of the Four Freedoms. However, my memory of events from the previous century is somewhat unreliable. What might be a useful thing to do is start adding appendices to the DFSG with examples of how we have interpreted certain sections. (With valid, and invalid arguments in each.) It should be made very clear that these examples are merely to clarify the opinions of debian-legal, and are in no way binding. Indeed. I would welcome such a document, though so far I have not had the energy to create one. It will also be a useful source of inspiration when we get around to proposing changes to the DFSG. Richard Braakman
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity? That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage some users to keep software proprietary. It's really weird to hear RMS argue in favor of that. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Glenn Maynard writes: On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to reply at this point. ] The response you are quoting was made on the same day I received the message it replies to. (There may have been SMTP queuing lag, of course; I've had some of my own mails to Debian lists take a few hours to get back to me over the last week or so.) Touche'. I should have ignored Thomas's bear-baiting. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Stephen Ryan writes: On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 22:36, Russell Nelson wrote: To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you, fuck off, and fuck yourself. Right. Rubbery green skin, smells bad, bad hair, obnoxious attitude. Back under the bridge with you! Get lost, idiot. I'm not riding this hobby horse because I think it's fun. The boards of SPI and OSI are of the opinion (or at least have been) that there should be one functional definition of open source and free software. Currently, they differ. Who has to change? Us? You? RMS? It's not obvious, and it's subject to discussion. Said discussion is not furthered by implying that I'm insincere, duplicitious, not listening, impervious to facts, or ... a troll. If you don't want to help, don't help. But don't try to sabotage the process. Jerk. Ean, can you help? This project is at least half your idea. You carry this cinderblock for a while, I'm tired of the accusations. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: If you notice, I have actually *listened* to you (gasp!!!) and have dropped that line of argumentation. While such a change of position may be of great moment to you, other people may have overlooked it in this very large discussion thread. This is especially true in your case, as you tend to write with an intransigent, not one step back! sort of tone. If you change your mind about something, it is polite to acknowledge that to the discussion group at the first opportunity. Not only does this allow you to redraw the parameters of the discussion, rendering the conversation more efficient (in that points no longer in contention are no longer debated), but it also helps to create the impression that one is capable of being persuaded or convinced to alter one's position through logical argument. -- G. Branden Robinson| Exercise your freedom of religion. Debian GNU/Linux | Set fire to a church of your [EMAIL PROTECTED] | choice. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpG8UWzZ0yif.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
ke, 05-03-2003 kello 18:10, Russell Nelson kirjoitti: The boards of SPI and OSI are of the opinion (or at least have been) that there should be one functional definition of open source and free software. http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution, section 9, Software in the Public Interest, subsection 9.1, Authority, enumerated list point 1: SPI has no authority regarding Debian's technical or nontechnical decisions, except that no decision by Debian with respect to any property held by SPI shall require SPI to act outside its legal authority, and that Debian's constitution may occasionally use SPI as a decision body of last resort. Thus, the opinion of the board of the SPI has no relevance for this. The consensus of Debian developers on debian-legal seems to be that the DFSG works well enough for Debian as a set of guidelines, and that rewriting it as a definition instead is not a good idea. In fact I, as others, think it is a particularly bad idea, from Debian's point of view. I will lobby against such a change. The OSI, on the other hand, needs a definition. There seems to be no middle ground. I see no problem with the OSI doing their thing and Debian doing its thing. Thus, I also see no point for this discussion to continue.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity? That's a loaded description. How do you differentiate free software and proprietary software when it's only posessed by the author? I don't think you can, so I don't think your question has any meaning. The related question -- why shouldn't we force all changes to code to be distributed, either back to the author, or to the public at large -- is problematic because it imposes a burden that can be quite awkward on the author. It also limits you from doing things you might want: hardcoding security-sensitive information into a program, hacking a feature into a GPLed program that'll indicate your future business strategy in a way you're not ready to go public with yet, or something else. If nothing else, it's a nuisance in that when you're just randomly hacking on stuff that's licensed this way, you have to suddenly realise Ooops! I fixed a bug, better go rsync the sources to my homepage. The GPL's requirement -- source with binaries -- is much more reasonable; you can do your development in private, and only distribute the source when you're going to be distributing stuff anyway. Even RMS's proposed GPLv3 requirement of requiring source distribution with public demonstrations of your code (host a webpage on a modified, GPLv3ed, boa, and you'd have to release the source code to your changes too) don't go that far. The world'd be a much better place if people stopped trying to think of new ways to force people who aren't interested in contributing to do so anyway. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!'' pgpyJwsSNXYHg.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 11:10:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. According to web.archive.org, they seem to have been added to the GNU website sometime between December 1998, and April 1999. That's interesting; I had no idea it took the FSF that long to explicitly articulate this concept. Of course, you could say that the four freedoms always _were_ the basis of the DFSG, and we just didn't realise it at the time... This seems plausible to me. Geeks and hackers have a better feel for the concept of freedom than the suits that have descended upon the community in droves over the past few years. (Money's good, but some things shouldn't be for sale.) -- G. Branden Robinson| Mob rule isn't any prettier just Debian GNU/Linux | because you call your mob a [EMAIL PROTECTED] | government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpqHjTtum7I9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 09:05:38AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity? That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage some users to keep software proprietary. It's really weird to hear RMS argue in favor of that. Perhaps because he also values personal, individual privacy. In the U.S., thanks to _Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company_[1], which is *still* a controlling precedent, it's very difficult to draw a distinction between individual privacy and corporate privacy that will be upheld in court. Large corporations, with the help of their shills in government, are already fiendishly efficient at demolishing individual privacy; I for one am not yet ready to sign on to the philosophy of the panopticon. (As an aside, it just occurred me that the relative prominence of Christian Fundamentalism -- and wider subscription to monotheistic religion in general -- in the United States when contrasted with Europe may explain why U.S. citizens in general so meekly fritter away their privacy -- God can already see everything you do and punish you for your sins, so what does it matter if the Government or the Company can, too?) [1] http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Santa/ -- G. Branden Robinson|Humor is a rubber sword - it allows Debian GNU/Linux |you to make a point without drawing [EMAIL PROTECTED] |blood. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Mary Hirsch pgpAd9SqlwuB2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you, fuck off, and fuck yourself. It might be more fruitful to provide affirmative evidence for the converse of those perceptions, because your offering certainly doesn't. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | If ignorance is bliss, [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is omniscience hell? http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpzIziQLAH7w.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 08:10, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 05:08:08AM -0500, Simon Law wrote: Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. I always thought that the FSF's (and RMS's) Four Freedoms were always the basis of the DFSG. The Four Freedoms actually came well after the DFSG. Not so! On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. As I recall, Debian postdates 1941. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: Sure. Why don't we adopt RMS's? That would be my first vote. Well, because RMS is wrong. Why should a free software license allow someone to keep software proprietary within a single legal entity? That's the end result of his privacy requirement -- to encourage some users to keep software proprietary. It's really weird to hear RMS argue in favor of that. Because, um, freedom. Freedom. Not publicity or available without cost, but *freedom*, which includes the freedom to keep things to yourself or only share them with your friends.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 03:00:31PM -0500, David Turner wrote: Not so! On January 6 of 1941, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said: In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. As I recall, Debian postdates 1941. Is this a joke? FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's. -- G. Branden Robinson| It doesn't matter what you are Debian GNU/Linux | doing, emacs is always overkill. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Stephen J. Carpenter http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | pgpn608etJCPa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 05 Mar 2003, Branden Robinson wrote: Is this a joke? Asks someone whose wit is of great renown. FDR's Four Freedoms are not the same as the FSF's. In the future days which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants --everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor --anywhere in the wold. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.[1] Don Armstrong 1: FDR's Four Freedoms Speach http://www.libertynet.org/~edcivic/fdr.html -- Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu pgp0gNxZfYJx9.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Glenn Maynard writes: On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:38:52AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you say it says. You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the plain meaning of the DFSG). Debian has never promised to anyone, ever, that we will put their software in Debian if it meets the DFSG. We can, and do, exercise many other tests to exclude software, not just the DFSG. Russell has been told exactly this several times. He is choosing not to listen, and offers no counterarguments to this fact nor further arguments to support his position. (Why do people seem to believe that repeating the same thing several times makes it more true, and ignoring others' arguments makes them less true?) Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to reply at this point. ] If you notice, I have actually *listened* to you (gasp!!!) and have dropped that line of argumentation. To anybody who think I'm being insincere, or duplicitious, or not listening to you, or impervious to facts, I offer a hearty fuck you, fuck off, and fuck yourself. I will cheerfully admit to being wrong when I've been convinced of such, and if I feel an apology is deserved, will offer one. On the other hand, if you think that you can convince me simply by giving me the benefit of your charming repartee, rapier-sharp wit, or brilliant thought, guess again. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | A government does enough Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | wrong to offset what it 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | does right. Better that Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | it should do less.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 10:36:21PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Why do some people think it's productive to reply to stale email that is no longer a current topic of conversation? [ Thomas, feel free to reply at this point. ] The response you are quoting was made on the same day I received the message it replies to. (There may have been SMTP queuing lag, of course; I've had some of my own mails to Debian lists take a few hours to get back to me over the last week or so.) (The rest of this message doesn't warrant a response.) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've no doubt. Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian? It doesn't need to. I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner. We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases. If there is to be one document describing free and open software, it has to cover those cases. You may not have understood how the DFSG is applied, but we have been remarkably consistent about it.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? No problem. If they are a Debian developer, we explain better how we decide things. debian-legal is an excellent tool for this. And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you say it says. You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the plain meaning of the DFSG). Debian has never promised to anyone, ever, that we will put their software in Debian if it meets the DFSG. We can, and do, exercise many other tests to exclude software, not just the DFSG.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Henning == Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. Henning We sure do have. Debian is a volunteer organzation that Henning basically do thing for our own sake (namely, for having Henning part of the good karma it earns to produce a good free Henning OS). Henning If we, as a project, decide to pull out, say, GNU Emacs, Henning from Debian because one of its C source files has an MD5 Henning sum that happens to be JESUS LIVES! in EBCDIC spelled Henning backwards and we don't want to force evangelization on Henning non-Cristian users, exactly zero people outside the Henning project will have any way to hold us accountable for that Henning decision. Our priorities are our users and free software. If you as a Debian developer make a decision that is inconsistent with those priorities then I would certainly feel empowered to try and hold youaccountable for that decision.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
John == John Goerzen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson John wrote: But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. John And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become John more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. I John for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in John Debian, and would resist measures that would lead to a John weakening of our Free Software standards. No, he actually seems to be asking for us to clarify the DFSG. He'd probably be happier if we clarified the DFSG to explain what we mean even if it ended up disagreeing with the OSI on all future licenses than if it was unclear. OK, perhaps not going that far, but other than the costs of doing so, being more clear in and of itself seems like a good idea.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 11:59, Steve Greenland wrote: On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen writes: Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal, say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing, it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Consensus is not universal agreement. A single dissenter does not break consensus. Actually, IIRC, Russell Nelson is a Quaker -- a member of the Religious Society of Friends. In Quaker circles, consensus means unanimous agreement -- a single dissent does block consensus. Thus, it's considered very important to only block concensus when your conscience demands it -- not frivilously. At least, this is what I learned at a Quaker school in Philadelphia -- but IANAQ. I think this definition is actually useful. But whether it should be adopted depends on whether members of the list understand how to live in a consensus-based society -- when to block concensus, and when not to. -- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668 On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters of principle, stand like a rock. -Thomas Jefferson
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me. John Goerzen writes: And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you? I am NOT prepared to compromise Debian's high Free Software standards. I am NOT prepared to accept RPSL-licensed software into Debian. In this case, compromise seems to me merely a word for cave-in. I have no prima facie opposition to clarifying points of the DFSG based on important case history from debian-legal; however, I would rather see this as a DFSG companion rather than an amendment to the DFSG itself. I for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in Debian, and Why? The sole objections that I can see from debian-legal archives refer to text which has been changed in the final OSI-approved license. My objections referred to the text as posted on your website under the approved section as of... about two days ago. -- John
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
John Goerzen writes: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:22:33AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me. John Goerzen writes: And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you? I am NOT prepared to compromise Debian's high Free Software standards. I am NOT prepared to accept RPSL-licensed software into Debian. In this case, compromise seems to me merely a word for cave-in. Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you give up on some things in order to get something else you want more. Again, I must say that if the consensus of the debian-legal list is that there is no need to change the DFSG, then we have no basis for discussion. There cannot be convergence unless the DFSG changes! I have no prima facie opposition to clarifying points of the DFSG based on important case history from debian-legal; however, I would rather see this as a DFSG companion rather than an amendment to the DFSG itself. Why? What purpose would it serve, when that document would have equal authority to the DFSG? Why not amend the DFSG (modulo the fact that it's hard work)? I for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in Debian, and Why? The sole objections that I can see from debian-legal archives refer to text which has been changed in the final OSI-approved license. My objections referred to the text as posted on your website under the approved section as of... about two days ago. Huh? But your objection was bogus. DFSG-free is DFSG-free even if a given set of people have more freedom. I could say, in the Russ Nelson license, Everybody can distribute this software. If you change the software, you must change the name, unless you're Russ Nelson, in which case you don't have to change the name. Would you object to such a license? (Hint: it is approximately the Apache license.) Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal, say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing, it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, and 2) in any case, two of many is never consensus even if we agreed with each other. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wednesday 29 January 2003 01:47, Russell Nelson wrote: Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you give up on some things in order to get something else you want more. Yes! Now you have to supply what something else you want more is for the Debian developers. You made clear in the first email what the OSI would perceive as a benefit. Now you have to come up with a reason Debian developers will go for. The 2 groups have different reasons for being, after all. Otherwise, we're in for more wheel spinning. Lynn
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On 29-Jan-03, 00:47 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Goerzen writes: Besides which, you are but one person. You do not get to say what the consensus is on the RPSL. Given that I, one member of debian-legal, say one thing, and you, one member of debian-legal, say another thing, it seems that 1) we don't have a consensus, I don't think that word means what you think it means. Consensus is not universal agreement. A single dissenter does not break consensus. and 2) in any case, two of many is never consensus even if we agreed with each other. We probably have consensus on that point. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:47:11AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you? I am NOT prepared to compromise Debian's high Free Software standards. I am NOT prepared to accept RPSL-licensed software into Debian. In this case, compromise seems to me merely a word for cave-in. Of course. You cave-in on some things, we cave-in on others. Or don't you understand what compromise means? Compromise means that you give up on some things in order to get something else you want more. And this, really, seems to be the sticking point. Yes, the DFSG could stand to be improved; but I don't understand how these improvements will help, vis à vis the OSI. We do a lot of work to improve the DFSG, which though imperfect, seems to do its job ok as far as the people on this list are concerned; and as a result, we get... a slightly clearer document that still delineates the outer, not inner, bound of the main archive, that is still interpreted by humans. Is that all we get? What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more like the OSD? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpIyxUZEUbmk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Steve Langasek writes: What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG were more like the OSD? Let me rephrase what you said. I want to be clear that I expect Debian to change the DFSG, and OSI to change the OSD. Both documents can be improved, but they should be improved to be the same thing. What would the benefits to the greater community be if the DFSG and the OSD were more alike? 1) Surely you've seen the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, where the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front are constantly at loggerheads? While the real power are the Romans, of course. I needn't elaborate. 2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of free software: the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal, and RMS's definition. Suppose someone wants to join this community of software developers. Which community does he join? By joining one, does he join all? Confusion isn't good for us. 3) NOBODY is served well by a split (which I don't think has actually occurred, but the potential alarms people) wherein the corporate entities choose the OSD, and software developers choose from the list of alternatives above. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 12:49:54PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: 2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of free software: the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal, and RMS's definition. This seems to be the root of the issue: the DFSG is _not_ a definition. It is a set of guidelines. Guidelines are only meaningful when they are applied (which is not the same as interpreting them), and as far as I know Debian is the only entity currently applying these guidelines. So there is no the DFSG separate from the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal, and neither of those is a definition anyway. You keep trying to treat the DFSG as a definition, probably out of habit from working with the OSD. That's simply not going to work. If you want a meeting of minds here, then you'll have to address this fundamental difference. I'll try to give it a start: Do you think that Debian _should_ move from using guidelines to using a definition? If so, what's the benefit? Do you understand the risks we see, and do you have an answer for those? If not, then what kind of convergence do you have in mind? Same text, different application? Some kind of hybrid between the two approaches? What does the OSI currently do with licenses that meet the OSD but are egregiously non-free? (As a practical example, I don't see anything in the OSD that would rule out a license that expires at a certain date.) Richard Braakman
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: 1) Surely you've seen the Monty Python movie Life of Brian, where the People's Front of Judea and the Judean People's Front are constantly at loggerheads? While the real power are the Romans, of course. I needn't elaborate. Perhaps I'm dense, or perhaps you do need to elaborate. Debian and OSI can certainly work together and agree on many things even if these documents differ. As far as I can tell, we're rarely at loggerheads. If there are disagreements that are causing pain to OSI, Debian, or other groups, let's talk about those specific problems and see if we can resolve them. Starting out by trying to change constitutions is a pretty wild leap. 2) Besides that, there are at least four definitions of free software: the OSD, the DFSG, the DFSG as interpreted by debian-legal, and RMS's definition. Of that list, only 1 claims to be a definition. In reality, there are thousands of opinions about what constitutes freedom. Suppose someone wants to join this community of software developers. Which community does he join? By joining one, does he join all? Of course not, communities don't work that way. He joins whatever community(ies) he wants to. Communities are interconnected, so he probably gets introduced to many additional communities that he can join. There is no free software community. There's probably no Debian community, though there are various connected communities within Debian. Confusion isn't good for us. This phrase has no content. Confusion is better than being ignored or forced into something, and worse than having everyone agree with us (for various us-es). 3) NOBODY is served well by a split (which I don't think has actually occurred, but the potential alarms people) wherein the corporate entities choose the OSD, and software developers choose from the list of alternatives above. There is no community of corporate entities either. Each individual corporation gets to choose it's criteria for distributing software. As has been shown, they tend not to like to use existing licenses, so each one has to be judged seperately. If you want to do some real good for the corporate community, come up with a set of licenses that netscape, ibm, apple, etc. agree to use and both OSI and Debian agree is unambiguously free. Then (like now), it won't matter if our critera have different words and different processes for determination. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Mark Rafn writes: I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition rather than a set of guidelines. This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. If you think that you have arbitrarily excluded software, think back on why you have been successful in doing so. Undoubtedly you pointed to the DFSG or to case law, or else you made a new precedent. But when you make a new precedent, you have to say exactly why, and justify it. Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it incorporates the case law? Because it's hard? Shit, coding is *hard* and we do it anyway. Because you think people will reject the change? But the change has already taken effect operationally. It seems to me rather that the membership would *want* to change the DFSG, if only so as to keep the subset of Debian which is debian-legal in check. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 08:58:05AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner. Yes; that's why the DFSG is the Debian Free Software _Guidelines_. It's written to require intelligent interpretation, and doesn't cover all cases. That's by design -- we tried a couple of times to formalise it more a while ago, but basically decided not to, largely on the presumption that we don't know everything and are thus probably better off waiting 'til we know what issues come up, before trying to address them. The DFSG is the basis for all this, but it's not completely definitive, by any means. We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases. That's your choice. IIRC, you'll find a bunch of people expressing concern about OSI converting our guidelines into a definition if you look through various list archives around that time. HTH. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Australian Linux Lovefest Heads West'' -- linux.conf.au, Perth W.A., 22nd-25th January 2003 pgpkJhT9HU7zl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On 27-Jan-03, 23:49 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Undoubtedly you pointed to the DFSG or to case law, or else you made a new precedent. But when you make a new precedent, you have to say exactly why, and justify it. Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it incorporates the case law? For the same reason that US Federal law is not amended and made more detailed every time a federal court makes a decision: because it would shortly become (even more) unwieldy and unreadable. Previous court decisions are published and are used every day to guide and influence decisions to made. That the whole point of case law. Our case law is the archive of debian-legal. Now, sometimes the case law is unclear, and there are ongoing problems related to the lack of clarity, and then laws are added, amended, or repealed to make clear the will and intent of the lawmakers and society[1]. So far, that hasn't happened with the DFSG. Maybe it should. But I don't think that copying the OSD and saying here's your checklist is going to work for us. A lot of what the DFSG is about is in the spirit of freedom guidelines, because we want the freedom (you would say arbitrariness) to reject licenses that meet the letter of the document but grossly violate the spirit of it. This whole discussion comes down to the fact that you think this idea is a problem, and we[2] don't. Steve [1] Or corporations and lobbyists, depending on your level of cynicism. [2] We, many of the Debian developers, but almost certainly not all. -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On 27-Jan-03, 12:57 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Henning Makholm writes: Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of guidelines. Why do you want two? We don't want two, we have only one. You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do not carry the day. You seem to be defining compromise as Converting the DFSG to the OSD. Why can't compromise be Each group having its own document that suits the purposes of the group? Our groups have different goals, different priorities, and different personalities, if you will. We've never[1] claimed that the DFSG serves any other use than providing Debian with a rough working definition of free software, for the purpose of determining whether or not a particular program can be in Debian. That it has gain widespread acceptance is a tribute to the fact that it is a fairly short list of fairly clear requirements[2]. Tarting it up in legalese and detail isn't going to make it any shorter or clearer. Steve [1] I'd guess that somewhere, sometime, some member of Debian has made other claims about it. [2] Also, that it wasn't written by RMS, although he defined basically the same things ~20 years ago. -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. We sure do have. Debian is a volunteer organzation that basically do thing for our own sake (namely, for having part of the good karma it earns to produce a good free OS). If we, as a project, decide to pull out, say, GNU Emacs, from Debian because one of its C source files has an MD5 sum that happens to be JESUS LIVES! in EBCDIC spelled backwards and we don't want to force evangelization on non-Cristian users, exactly zero people outside the project will have any way to hold us accountable for that decision. The only thing we're accountable to is our own idea of our user's needs, and what we've promised the users. That's what the DFSG is: We promise our users that, to the best of our ability, we'll strive not to include any software that doesn't have the freedoms we think free software should have. We've written down the DFSG so that users will have an idea what we're promising them, and also to remind ourselves what it was that we promised. However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it disappoints them enough. Nobody can sue us for not including their favorite software. Nobody can sue us for not including software they wrote. It's a decision that lies with us, and if we were to choose to make our decisions by tossing dice, the world's sole remedy would be to ignore us. (Of course we do incur some liability when we choose to do distribute something, because we need to have the copyright holder's permission to do so. But that is another matter). Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it incorporates the case law? Because it's hard? Shit, coding is *hard* and we do it anyway. There's nothing *wrong* per se with making the DFSG more explicit (as long as nobody begins to claim it to be an objective touchstone that does not require judgement in applying it). However, being nothing wrong with is not always a sufficient reason to do something. I don't know you, but I assume you wouldn't have made it to the OSI board without quite some experience with the social dynamics of the free software movement. Therefore is puzzles me that you apparently don't see the enormity of what you're asking. Just logistically, changing the DFSG is not a simple matter. It is not enough simply to reach a consensus on a new wording on debian-legal (which probably would be possible). In order to be accepted as the new DFSG by the whole Debian community would require at least a vote among all developers. In fact, as there is not even a procedure in place for changing the Social Contract (of which the DFSG are part), multiple votes would be needed, the first ones to decide how and why the later ones can have force. A lot of people will oppose those procedural changes on principle, not because they have anything against the concrete clarifications proposed, but because they fear that the mere precedent of amending the DFSG will open the door for other changes they don't want (say, relating to the treatment of non-programs in relation to the DFSG). There will be a major flamewar, likely lasting months, before things settle down. So if someone were to set out amending the DFSG, that someone would need to be a rather senior and respected member of the Debian community, or he'd not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Even then, he'd *also* have to commit himself to using several hundred hours of his time to waging the necessary flamewars. Time that could have been used for coding things that would actually be helpful for users. Now you come and demand (no, suggesting politely) that one of us takes that much trouble upon himself to do that. What one asks oneself then, is: Why should I? Just because you ask nicely? Or because it will solve some problem that has been costing, or is likely to cost, the project actual griveance? The former is (apparently!) not going to impress anyone, and as for the latter we're not convinced it's true. Remember, we're the people in the line of fire, we're the ones who know from actual experience how much or little hassle it is to explain to upstream authors and developers how to read correctly between the lines of the current text. It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it. I suspect your real agenda is something like: The OSD is not unambiguous enough for the purposes the OSI is putting it to, so you want our help in fixing it. If you had come to us and said, please help us make the OSD better, I suspect you'd have gotten
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Why are you CC'ing me when the Debian list policy is not to? Henning Makholm writes: Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. We sure do have. No, you don't. You go on to say: However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it disappoints them enough. You agree with me, I see. Nobody can sue us for not including their favorite software. Nobody can sue us for not including software they wrote. Guess what, Henning: anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime anywhere (where anywhere is defined as any free country). Well... what is wrong with amending the DFSG so it incorporates the case law? Because it's hard? Shit, coding is *hard* and we do it anyway. There's nothing *wrong* per se with making the DFSG more explicit (as long as nobody begins to claim it to be an objective touchstone that does not require judgement in applying it). I don't think anybody claims that. Just logistically, changing the DFSG is not a simple matter. Neither is changing the OSD, yet we've managed to do it. So if someone were to set out amending the DFSG, that someone would need to be a rather senior and respected member of the Debian community, or he'd not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. I expect I could get bdale on board, and the entire board of SPI. If they don't want to do it, there's no point in proceeding. It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it. And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and may decide anything they wish. (Assuming of course that you're correct about your ability to be arbitrary, which I contend you are not). And you think that's not a broken process? I suspect your real agenda is something like: The OSD is not unambiguous enough for the purposes the OSI is putting it to, so you want our help in fixing it. If you had come to us and said, please help us make the OSD better, I am willing to see the OSD change to achieve convergence. I am NOT willing to NOT see the DFSG change to achieve convergence. But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Henning Makholm writes: Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. We sure do have. No, you don't. Care to elaborate? I don't like arbitrary exclusions but what prevents us from doing so? (When you say right here, do you mean moral, legal or what sort of right?) However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it disappoints them enough. You agree with me, I see. Please do not put words in other people's mouths. We have the right to disappoint users and sometimes we have to. (Usually with some good reason, though, like license or legal problems.) Nobody can sue us for not including their favorite software. Nobody can sue us for not including software they wrote. Guess what, Henning: anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime anywhere (where anywhere is defined as any free country). Ever heard of the legal term frivolous? Of course I can sue Debian to change their logo because I don't like it, or I can sue a certain maintainer because he uploaded a package with compiler options I don't like. Fortunately, judges would just laugh at this and dismiss it. So please make your point more clear here. It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it. And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and may decide anything they wish. (Assuming of course that you're correct about your ability to be arbitrary, which I contend you are not). The process is quite transparent, and discussion on -legal is not confined to the cabal. (The final decision is a different matter...) And you think that's not a broken process? No, it has its problems but it works quite well, and does not produce arbitrary decisions. But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. Deal with it, the world is cruel. Furthermore, what about the third group, the FSF? Now there are three different opinions about whether something is free or not. What is so terrible about that? Lukas P.S.: I don't object to clarification of the DFSG at some points, e.g. click-wrap licenses and such, maybe explicitly mentioning PD etc. However, I consider this of relatively minor importance. -- This is not a signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Henning Makholm writes: It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it. On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: And yet, you're doing that right now. No, we're not. We're acknowledging that our guidelines are incomplete and living with that state. That's clearly different than turning the constitution upside down. One cannot rely on the language of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and may decide anything they wish. True. And you think that's not a broken process? I think it's not a broken process. It could be improved, but it does what I, as a debian user, want it to do. I get well-packaged software that I can trust is free. Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. I'd much rather see the current state of affairs than one where RPSL code is declared free just because there's no specific rule against it, even when a large group of developers thinks otherwise. So, here we are. If you approach it from a different standpoint (we have two processes for determining what's free, and both can be improved), there may be some benefits everyone can see. Personally, I'd love to see a stronger OSD, with the loopholes and caveats that come up closed when they're found. If it works well, I expect Debian will be more likely to use it as a template, or at least reference document, when deciding if something is debian-free. If I can help toward this end, please let me know. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On 28-Jan-03, 10:02 (CST), Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, the *only* ill that could befall Debian for arbitrarily excluding something is that some of our users will be disappointed with not having it, and that they will start using another OS if it disappoints them enough. You agree with me, I see. No, he *doesn't*. Either you can't read, or *I* can't read. You keep making claims about vague legal liabilities that Debian will incur by not packaging and distributing some piece of software. Guess what, Henning: anybody can sue anybody for anything anytime anywhere (where anywhere is defined as any free country). True, but can they win? And even if they do, what are they going to get? The most valuable thing we own is the name Debian, and I can guarantee that if someone won it in a lawsuit, the value would instantly go to zero, and the we'd simply crank up a new project, probably with less trouble than the effort involved in modifying the DFSG. And since anyone *can* file a lawsuit for pretty much anything they want anytime they feel hurt, how does changing the DFSG help? So if someone were to set out amending the DFSG, that someone would need to be a rather senior and respected member of the Debian community, or he'd not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. I expect I could get bdale on board, and the entire board of SPI. If they don't want to do it, there's no point in proceeding. Then why don't you go that, rather than wasting time here? It seems that most of the debian-legal regulars have decided for themselves that, sure there are things that might be said clearer, but it's not broken enough to turn the Constitution upside down to fix it. And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and may decide anything they wish. (Assuming of course that you're correct about your ability to be arbitrary, which I contend you are not). And you think that's not a broken process? TINC. :-) And no, I don't think it's broken. It's worked pretty well for a number of years, even while the cabal has changed. Some authors have gone away disappointed, but that's their choice. Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. I don't think it's a great thing, but I don't see it as a problem either. Different companies and organizations have lots of different opinions about many different things. And why would changing the OSD and DFSG to be textually identical change this? You yourself agreed that judgement and interpetation would continue to be necessary; do you really believe that we'd agree on every single borderline case? Or do you expect us to bow to your (OSI's) judgement in what is free software? Sorry, you guys blew that chance a long time ago. I'd much rather trust the regulars on debian-legal (aka the elite cabal) than OSI. Hell, I rather turn the whole thing over to RMS - he is, if nothing else, consistent. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 11:02, Russell Nelson wrote: And yet, you're doing that right now. One cannot rely on the language of the DFSG to decide if something is DFSG-free. One must apply to an elite cabal of Debian members who are completely unaccountable and may decide anything they wish. (Assuming of course that you're correct about your ability to be arbitrary, which I contend you are not). Why do the senior developers on debian-legal constitute an elite cabal who are completely unaccountable and the OSI board not? Or, if the OSI board does [constitute ...], why is it preferable to the folks in debian-legal? Of course, you also have to identify to whom they accountable. I suspect debian-legal would prove accountable to the debian developers is they really became capricious. How would OSI be accountable to those developers? Lynn
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tuesday 28 January 2003 08:02 am, Russell Nelson wrote: Henning Makholm writes: Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This seems to be a sticking point with a lot of people. Essentially, everyone seems to be defending their right to arbitrarily exclude software from Debian. But that is a right you don't have. We sure do have. No, you don't. [quickly degenerating to yes it is!/no it isn't! I see ;-D] But forced labor is considered slavery, and is specifically made illegal by an amendment to the US constitution. This point has been interpreted under US law to make many kinds of labor contracts illegal (e.g. there always has to be an alternate way out of the contract, even if payment has already been made). Given that kind of precedent, the context for claiming that a non-profit group of volunteer laborers can be sued for not doing labor without pay seems to be illegal to the point of being laughable. I don't think any court in the US would seriously pursue such a suit. At most, the court might be persuaded to take away some legal privilege of that organization. Are you claiming that Debian has such a privilege which can be meaningfully taken away? If so, can you be specific? The case might be stronger if the outside party were prepared to incur all of the labor costs (coding, packaging, and distributing). But anyone can do that at any time if they like: Debian non-official packages are available at many sites, even for non-free packages. So I don't think you can make any kind of claim under discrimination laws. Debian doesn't even distribute their disks -- they let other people do that, which leaves the way open for companies to produce their own derivitive versions. Freedom of the press is for those who have one. I suspect your real agenda is something like: The OSD is not unambiguous enough for the purposes the OSI is putting it to, so you want our help in fixing it. If you had come to us and said, please help us make the OSD better, I am willing to see the OSD change to achieve convergence. I am NOT willing to NOT see the DFSG change to achieve convergence. Why does OSI want this? Those who have posted seem to be saying that they don't see any compelling argument from Debian's side. Maybe, if you were able to show what your motivations are, it would help to sell the idea. Volunteers are liable to be extremely distrustful of a corporate type who seems to want *anything* really badly, but won't explain what they get out of it. They tend to prefer the We love Bud because they pay us type of advertising, if you see what I mean. IMHO, anyway. ;-D I have a theory about why you want this, which may seem a bit cynical, but which goes like this: If we get Debian to adopt OSD as the DFSG (even if this requires changes), and they are legally required to include any software released under the DFSG, then any 'OSI-approved' software will be legally required to be in Debian, then we can offer 'automatic inclusion in Debian' as a carrot to corporate developers, thus further promoting 'open-source' in Corporate America. Aside from the fact that this would dump the legal responsibility for funding this (in kind) on Debian, I don't think it would be such a terrible goal. However, I do not think that any such legal responsibility exists now, as I point out above, and I think that making it so would require a substantial commitment of funds (and not necessarily be a good thing). Indeed, I think the only fair way to do it would be to create an OSI-funded derivitive of Debian, which takes on the extra responsibilities you want it to have. If you had to *fund* this, though, I think you'd think twice about the guaranteed inclusion business, and hastily add a few dozen loopholes to squeeze yourself through. I know *I'd* be scared of it. ;-D I'm speaking hypothetically of course -- but if this is not your reason, please clarify or imaginations will run wild. ;-D On the other hand, taking Corporate America open-source is a goal I think a lot of developers might be sympathetic to. I know I am. But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. Unfortunately, that argument could as easily mean you should adopt the DFSG *as* the OSD. I may come off as being violently opposed to altering the DFSG, but of course, I'm not, and as an outsider, I don't think it's really my job to push or pull on the issue. But I think you're not really taking the right tack in arguing for a change. Personally,
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 11:02:23AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: But what you actually seem to say is: We have these two documents that except for a few places are identical; please make a lot of changes to yours so that we can have them converge. That doesn't make much sense to me, Would you rather have the current state of affairs, where one group of free software developers says the RPSL is a free software license, and another says it's not a free software license? I can't imagine anybody would think that's a good thing. And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. I for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in Debian, and would resist measures that would lead to a weakening of our Free Software standards.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
I'm on the mailing list, there's no need to CC me. John Goerzen writes: And yet every proposal you put forth is Debian must become more like OSI and the DFSG must become more like OSD. ... and the OSD must become more like the DFSG, and proposed open source licenses should be run past debian-legal. I'm not proposing unilateral action on anybody's part. I'm prepared to compromise (or rather, to recommend compromise to my board of directors). Are you? I for one am glad that RPSL-licensed software is not in Debian, and Why? The sole objections that I can see from debian-legal archives refer to text which has been changed in the final OSI-approved license. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
[EMAIL PROTECTED], Nelson nelson@crynwr.com : and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain unlicensed software. strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian... + [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~€ cat /usr/share/doc/abuse-frabs/copyright This package was debianized by Arto Jantunen [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 20 Apr 2001 15:56:17 +0300. It was downloaded from http://www.cs.uidaho.edu/~cass0664/fRaBs Upstream Author: Justin Cassidy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright: Public Domain + -- All the computers wait at the same speed . /\ ° Real Name: Lorenzo Petrone* WEB!!! http://lano.webhop.net \/ ·
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Lo'oRiS il Kabukimono writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nelson nelson@crynwr.com : and yet the DFSG does not admit the possibility of public-domain unlicensed software. strange, because the game Abuse is public domain and is part of Debian... I've no doubt. Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian? I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner. We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases. If there is to be one document describing free and open software, it has to cover those cases. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian? It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what one *can't* have in Debain. Since none of those apply to public-domain software, the latter can be in Debian. Simple, eh? Another way of saying the same: The DFSG decribes which freedoms users and redistibutors must have in order for the software to be in Debian. Users and redistributors of public-domain software do have all those freedoms. I'm not trying to be obstreperous, or cause trouble. I'm trying to point out that you're applying the DFSG in an arbitrary manner. If you want to believe it's arbitrary, go right ahead. We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases. That's good for you, I suppose. Do you want Debian to do something about that? -- Henning Makholm Nemo enim fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Henning Makholm writes: Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Still, where in the DFSG does it say that you can have unlicensed software (even if it's public-domain) in Debian? It says so everywhere: The only thing that DFSG speaks about is what one *can't* have in Debain. Since none of those apply to public-domain software, the latter can be in Debian. Simple, eh? Foo on that. The DFSG says The license must allow modifications and derived works... If it's public domain, there *is* no license. The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you say it says. You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the plain meaning of the DFSG). Maybe this hasn't happened yet. Maybe Debian isn't popular enough in the business community for it to happen. Maybe it will NEVER be popular enough in that community. Maybe it would be better to head them off at the pass and revise the DFSG. I'm not in any way saying that you must or should adopt the OSD's changes. I'm saying that you should fix problems in the DFSG rather than saying Well, if you interpret section X to mean that you can't rely on a GUI, therefore no license can use click-wrap. Another way of saying the same: The DFSG decribes which freedoms users and redistibutors must have in order for the software to be in Debian. Users and redistributors of public-domain software do have all those freedoms. The DFSG talks about licenses, not freedoms. If you want it to talk about freedoms, then it should talk about freedoms. We can't do that at OSI, so we need the OSD to cover these cases. That's good for you, I suppose. Do you want Debian to do something about that? Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of guidelines. Why do you want two? What purpose can be served by having a difference? -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: The DFSG has a problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed software which belongs in Debian. Rather than amend it, you're interpreting its ambiguity to mean what you want. That's fine, but what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance (they created this software for this express purpose of putting it into Debian, relying on the DFSG to mean what it says, not what you say it says. You will harm their business if you refuse to go by the plain meaning of the DFSG). ... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never represented, *anywhere*, that it will package all software someone releases under a DFSG-compliant license. Anyone who would sue Debian for such a reason is, prima facie, a litigious idiot who does not warrant consideration when evaluating whether Debian is exposing itself to lawsuits. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgpga1VqAnHBP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Scripsit Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Foo on that. The DFSG says The license must allow modifications and derived works... If it's public domain, there *is* no license. If it's public domain, the license is anyone can do whatever he wants to it. The DFSG has a problem. I think you have an understanding problem. It fails to admit that there is unlicensed software which belongs in Debian. No it doesn't. That's fine, but what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? We tell them that they are free to interpret the DFSG whatever way they mean, but the interpretation that is going to be used for deciding to reject a package on license grounds is the one of the debian-legal consensus (or, failing to reach such a consensus, the ftpmasters and eventually the project leader). And then they insist that their software MUST go into Debian. Then we're going to get a good laugh. If you refuse, they will sue you for reliance And once more. I'm saying that you should fix problems in the DFSG You're inventing problems that aren't there. There are plenty of other, real, problems to fix if anybody cares enough about them to carry them through the flamefest any proposal to change so much as a comma will cause. Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of guidelines. Why do you want two? We don't want two, we have only one. -- Henning Makholm Hører I. Kald dem sammen. Så mange som overhovedet muligt. Jeg siger jer det her er ikke bare stort. Det er Stortstortstort. Det er allerhelvedes stort. Det er historiEN.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Henning Makholm writes: Yes. I want there to be one and only one definition and set of guidelines. Why do you want two? We don't want two, we have only one. You seem uninterested in compromise. I hope you do not carry the day. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? ... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never represented, *anywhere*, that it will package all software someone releases under a DFSG-compliant license. Has Debian ever rejected software which complies with the DFSG? If you do something in practice, other parties could rely on that. It's just like the private road which is never closed to the public. In time, it *becomes* public. Anyone who would sue Debian for such a reason is, prima facie, a litigious idiot who does not warrant consideration when evaluating whether Debian is exposing itself to lawsuits. I won't name names, but we (OSI) have been threatened with exactly that scenario. It is as I feared: the DFSG and OSD, although originally the same documents, and nearly identical now, are being used for two different and incompatible purposes. So, are you totally against the idea of changing the DFSG even though you probably can't find a single .deb on your machine that hasn't been touched in five years? There seems to be a firm resistance to the idea of changing the DFSG to reflect changing times. -- -russ nelson http://russnelson.com | You get prosperity when Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | the government does less, 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | not when the government Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | does something right.
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
ma, 27-01-2003 kello 22:09, Russell Nelson kirjoitti: Has Debian ever rejected software which complies with the DFSG? If you do something in practice, other parties could rely on that. It's just like the private road which is never closed to the public. In time, it *becomes* public. I don't know of any free software that has been rejected from Debian, though my memory is what it's always been, bad. However, since every time a package is added to Debian, it requires effort on the behalf of individuals, if no individual wants to put in the effort, nothing happens. I doubt that even such a lawer-happy society as the USA can require people to put in such effort involuntarily. If I brush off the snow from the stairs in my apartment building every day, without compensation, and one day stop, no sane court is going to require me to start doing it again. (Sorry about the analogy.) Anyone who would sue Debian for such a reason is, prima facie, a litigious idiot who does not warrant consideration when evaluating whether Debian is exposing itself to lawsuits. I won't name names, but we (OSI) have been threatened with exactly that scenario. It is as I feared: the DFSG and OSD, although originally the same documents, and nearly identical now, are being used for two different and incompatible purposes. Like someone else already said, the OSD is a definition that others can use to decide whether their license makes their software open source or not. The DFSG is a set of guidelines, not quite a definition, that *Debian* uses to decide whether something is acceptable to be added to Debian or not. So, are you totally against the idea of changing the DFSG even though you probably can't find a single .deb on your machine that hasn't been touched in five years? There seems to be a firm resistance to the idea of changing the DFSG to reflect changing times. If there are any real problems in the DFSG, I'm sure Debian developers will change the DFSG to fix them. Debian is, however, governed by flame-war-cum-consensus, so expect things to be quite hot in the mean while. :) (I haven't been convinced that the potential problems you've pointed out so far are real problems, but it might be good to clarify the DFSG about them anyway.)
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? We patiently explain that DSFG are guidelines to Debian about what to include, not a litmus test for authors to use to skirt our requirement that Debian stays free. Sometimes this results in an improved license, often it results in a flamewar. So far it has not resulted in a lawsuit, nor do I think it likely to. On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Russell Nelson wrote: Has Debian ever rejected software which complies with the DFSG? If you do something in practice, other parties could rely on that. It's just like the private road which is never closed to the public. In time, it *becomes* public. Debian has rejected packages which the copyright holder believed complied with the DSFG. We've rejected packages that appear to comply, but the copyright holder has an odd interpretation of its license. There's certainly software not in Debian whose freedom is unquestioned. I won't name names, but we (OSI) have been threatened with exactly that scenario. It is as I feared: the DFSG and OSD, although originally the same documents, and nearly identical now, are being used for two different and incompatible purposes. It sounds that way. I wish you well, but do not have high hopes, for you to come up with a true operational definition of free software. Heh, and then folks will ask what about non-software things like documentation and images? So, are you totally against the idea of changing the DFSG even though you probably can't find a single .deb on your machine that hasn't been touched in five years? There seems to be a firm resistance to the idea of changing the DFSG to reflect changing times. Personally, I'm not against seeing the DSFG changed to make it clearer, to remove loopholes, etc. However, it's very hard to do so, both politically within Debian (for good reason) and intellectually to come up with such verbiage. I _DO_ object to changing it's use to be a binding definition rather than a set of guidelines. -- Mark Rafn[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.dagon.net/
Re: [Discussioni] OSD DFSG convergence
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:09:40PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Steve Langasek writes: On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:56:00AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: what do you do when someone comes along and interprets its ambiguity to mean what *they* want? ... Which would be complete and utter bullshit, because Debian has never represented, *anywhere*, that it will package all software someone releases under a DFSG-compliant license. Has Debian ever rejected software which complies with the DFSG? If you do something in practice, other parties could rely on that. Oh, absolutely. On grounds of licensing? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, there is nothing that can reasonably be construed as imposing an obligation on Debian to distribute all software that meets the DFSG. The DFSG spells out conditions that are necessary, but not sufficient, for software to enter the main archive. I won't name names, but we (OSI) have been threatened with exactly that scenario. It is as I feared: the DFSG and OSD, although originally the same documents, and nearly identical now, are being used for two different and incompatible purposes. Why is this to be feared? The ability to employ human judgement in deciding what software should be included in our archive is an *asset*, not a weakness; just as, where the mission of the OSI is concerned, being held to a position of neutrality is an asset. There's nothing wrong with the fact that the two organizations need documents that can be applied in slightly different manners; working towards a shared definition of freedom doesn't require marching in lockstep. So, are you totally against the idea of changing the DFSG even though you probably can't find a single .deb on your machine that hasn't been touched in five years? There seems to be a firm resistance to the idea of changing the DFSG to reflect changing times. I had hoped that my earlier messages conveyed that I was not opposed to changing the DFSG; but such changes are doomed to be delayed by Debian's current lack of process for revising our core documents. If we are going to start down that long road we must first be able to articulate *why* the change is necessary, or we'll never move the body of developers to action on what amounts to a purely political issue. Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgp4MmRoGmxm0.pgp Description: PGP signature
