Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Sun, 1 Sep 2013 17:12:46 + (UTC) Thorsten Glaser wrote: [...] Francesco Poli invernomuto at paranoici.org writes: You asked whether it's still acceptable for Debian main: I answered by describing what the FTP Masters think Look, as I said above, that was 2008. Not the recent discussion. *And* paultag already answered by question, to which you even REPLIED, so you KNEW your answer would be redundant. As I said, I thought that adding a reference to the explanation provided by the ftp masters could be useful. I did not know whether you were aware of the existence of that explanation, hence I did not know my answer would be perceived as redundant. and what I myself think. I absolutely am NOT interested in your personal opinion. Heck, I looked it up: you’re not even a Debian Developer! Does it make any difference, when it comes to assessing the validity of a license analysis? I mean: would my license analyses become automatically more valid, if I were a DD? Would you instantly become interested in my personal opinion, if I were a DD? Why? Why not? If you want to make changes and care about licencing, how about being constructive and starting on that path, Which path? Becoming a DD? Why should I become a DD? So that, once I am a DD, I will feel allowed to treat non-DDs with the same snobbishness you showed with me?!? You're definitely *not* encouraging me to become member of the Debian Project. You are *not* making me feel welcome. then working together with ftpmasters on resolving all these issues? I *did* try to discuss the AfferoGPL (and also other licenses) with the ftp masters: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 They don't seem to be willing to reply to counter-arguments. (Again, I personally do not think AGPL, and possibly even GPL, are fully DFSG free either, and I’ve got a totally different opinion on firmware, with backing, but when I act as Debian Developer sponsoring a prospective NM’s packages, I act with DD hat on, not by using my own opinions.) You are going on expressing your own personal opinions on various topics, while flaming me for having expressed my own personal opinion on the topic of this thread. This looks very awkward to me. [...] I thought I could add some more information. You apparently didn't appreciate it. Oh, well, that's a pity. Do not trivialise your response. You’re acting on an agenda, one that can clearly be seen by you soliciting, unasked for, your opinion on this-and-that licence in EVERY thread here, disagreeing on principle. (Hey, that’s my job! ☺) I am not disagreeing on principle. I agree with some decisions, I disagree with some other ones. Are you claiming that you are the *only one* allowed to express disagreement? Anyway: stop annoying people like that and try to be constructive by changing the official project stance on those problematic licences from within as an option. But first, “shut up”. How can I change the project decisions, if I shut up? I cannot telepathically act on the ftp masters' minds... I am really puzzled. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpvmuZ92p6b2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 02/09/13 21:27, Thorsten Glaser wrote: MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes: whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png You know that l.d.o is not the only interface to those lists, right? Yes, but we have good usage data on that interface and I've no evidence that subscription is stronger or weaker on other interfaces. I doubt any usage data shows considering unsubscribing clearly either, but if anyone has more comprehensive data, I'm happy to defer to it. [...] how does someone convince others without explaining the problems? I never said he shouldn’t explain the problems. I merely suggested he explain it in places where they can be addressed instead of in the place where Debian contributors go when they want advice on the project’s position on something, or sth. like that. Even though I sometimes prod people to concentrate on vital topics with questions like what software in debian is this about?, I've been reminded often enough that this list's charter (Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc) doesn't limit it to stating or even developing the project's position. I'm wondering what places. It already happens on the bug tracker, as noted earlier in this discussion. It happened on the FSF drafting interface, as far as people were able, for all the notice they took of many comments. I wouldn't suggest raising the AGPL's drawbacks in the list or forum or MUC of each package released under it. If no-one wants to explain where/how they feel licence interpretation differences should be explained more usefully/less annoyingly, I'll regard this as EOT from me too. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5225bf31.9080...@phonecoop.coop
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 01/09/13 18:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote: //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) Well, I'm a DD too, I don't back that sort of disrespectful, sarcastic, uncollaborative, overlong rant and yes, lurkers support me by email too! I'll accept that the link to 2008 wasn't current, but it's still the current situation as far as I know. I didn't realise from http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org that the request was only interested in the last quarter-year. Maybe phrasing it more explicitly than still would have helped get better replies with relevant references. Hope that helps, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224697f.5060...@phonecoop.coop
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:33 PM, MJ Ray wrote: On 01/09/13 18:12, Thorsten Glaser wrote: //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) Well, I'm a DD too, I don't back that sort of disrespectful, sarcastic, uncollaborative, overlong rant and yes, lurkers support me by email too! Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind people of Enrico Zini's Debian Community Guidelines which gives some tips for effective and constructive communication. http://people.debian.org/~enrico/dcg/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6gris6rgp-chvveihkbe1yzdwdogtunv+a3mzfxfwr...@mail.gmail.com
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
Paul Wise pabs at debian.org writes: Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing. I’ve heard that Francesco is the reason people are considering unsubscribing from this list. Yes, it’s *that* bad. I do *not* think we should keep the velvet gloves on every time – but if you want to do that, feel free to, just ignore me. (And, for the record, I did try to make constructive suggestions how Francesco can try to get his point across better.) Sorry I’m brutally honest. And yes, I stand by my actions. And, tbh, if this is official (someone finally says something against a long-standing annoyment, to the rejoicing of other people including DDs who suffered under said annoyment, only to be flamed by people who have failed to contribute so far) I can understand unsubscribing. It’s “only” Debian that suffers. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130902t131005-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 02/09/13 12:14, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Paul Wise pabs at debian.org writes: Likewise. I don't appreciate the disrespectful tone some folks have displayed in this and other recent threads. I would like to remind Oh great, and who’s going to deal with trolls then? You’re not holding Francesco to them, I’m noticing. I think there's a few mails in the archive from me on those lines, but I usually contact people off-list with such specific criticisms. Basically, I feel it's a minor problem because Francesco seems polite if repetitive - although I think this thread started because someone doesn't follow the list closely, so I'm not sure if that got noticed! I’ve heard that Francesco is the reason people are considering unsubscribing from this list. Yes, it’s *that* bad. [...] Well, we hear things like that every time someone doesn't agree about whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png There are solutions short of unsubscribing, such as filtering, if you really cannot stand to hear certain voices. So far, I think I've filtered three people out during 10 years. The conduct on this list has improved over time, but it could always improve further, of course. (And, for the record, I did try to make constructive suggestions how Francesco can try to get his point across better.) I noticed a suggestion that Francesco should work to become a DD because he's not even a Debian Developer! which seems a bit of a throwback to the non-package-maintaining contributors not welcomed dark ages. Even as someone in it, I feel most of the project is moving beyond a keyring-cabal mentality. I also noticed a suggestion that Francesco should shut up and then try to convince the project about the problems with the AGPL from within(huh?), which seemed rather absurdly destructive to me: how does someone convince others without explaining the problems? Both of those were in close proximity to some quite sharp words. Were there other suggestions I didn't notice? If not, I think we may have different understandings of constructive. Sorry I’m brutally honest. And yes, I stand by my actions. No need to be sorry about honesty: please be sorry for not being polite and collaborative, or at least not being clear. And, tbh, if this is official (someone finally says something against a long-standing annoyment, to the rejoicing of other people including DDs who suffered under said annoyment, only to be flamed by people who have failed to contribute so far) I can understand unsubscribing. It’s “only” Debian that suffers. I'm sorry that you feel flamed. That was not my intent. I regret that my debian contributions over recent years have been smaller than I'd like, for various reasons mostly related to working on other projects, but I feel pabs (maintains over thirty packages, does QA uploads and NMUs, sponsors over forty more) has contributed well, so listen to pabs if that's your criteria. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef) http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5224a295.1080...@phonecoop.coop
[OT] Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
MJ Ray mjr at phonecoop.coop writes: Well, we hear things like that every time someone doesn't agree about In this case I talked with other DDs on IRC. whether software follows the DFSG or not, yet the number of subscribers seems to be generally increasing towards some asymptote http://lists.debian.org/stats/debian-legal.png You know that l.d.o is not the only interface to those lists, right? I noticed a suggestion that Francesco should work to become a DD because he's not even a Debian Developer! which seems a bit of a throwback to the non-package-maintaining contributors not welcomed dark ages. Even DD does no longer equal “maintaining packages” (I notice we do not have a short term for “nōn-packaging project member” because DM is already used for packaging nōn-members). And I really meant DD as in “project member” here. I also noticed a suggestion that Francesco should shut up and then try to convince the project about the problems with the AGPL from within(huh?), which seemed rather absurdly destructive to me: how does someone convince others without explaining the problems? I never said he shouldn’t explain the problems. I merely suggested he explain it in places where they can be addressed instead of in the place where Debian contributors go when they want advice on the project’s position on something, or sth. like that. Maybe this explains my reasoning better? If it does, EOT from me. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130902t222406-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On 29/08/13 16:15, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Francesco, [stuff] Look, there's a command in email software for sending a reply to one person. Reply to List or Reply to All is not it - if anyone is going to lecture others on how to improve your communication behaviour, start by using the correct command, eh? Personally, I felt Francesco's message added value by giving a reference, which paultag did not do. The note about disagreement is the cost of that added value. I share some of them and have suggested the Co-operative Exceptions to overcome the most serious: 1. Developers need publish their modifications only (not the whole application source code with all unusual libraries) as long as they link back to our source code repository. 2. The running application need not check if the source code is currently on-line (so long as it is usually and can be requested). Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ supporter, web and LMS developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/522302c6.80...@phonecoop.coop
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
MJ Ray writes: Look, […] My reply was specifically to this newsgroup, a long-needed “request” to shut up, and explicitly *not* soliciting *your* personal(!) opinion on those licences either. I do not require the “added value”, and this newsgroup is spammed enough by the likes of you two. Besides, linking a bugreport from 2008 when I specifically asked whether anything had changed as result of the recent, i.e. last quarter year, discussion, was absolutely ZERO added value. Francesco Poli invernomuto at paranoici.org writes: You asked whether it's still acceptable for Debian main: I answered by describing what the FTP Masters think Look, as I said above, that was 2008. Not the recent discussion. *And* paultag already answered by question, to which you even REPLIED, so you KNEW your answer would be redundant. and what I myself think. I absolutely am NOT interested in your personal opinion. Heck, I looked it up: you’re not even a Debian Developer! If you want to make changes and care about licencing, how about being constructive and starting on that path, then working together with ftpmasters on resolving all these issues? (Again, I personally do not think AGPL, and possibly even GPL, are fully DFSG free either, and I’ve got a totally different opinion on firmware, with backing, but when I act as Debian Developer sponsoring a prospective NM’s packages, I act with DD hat on, not by using my own opinions.) My own opinion was just a side-note. Yes. What annoys people is that you solicit it in EVERY THREAD in this newsgroup. Stop that, period. I am surprised to see that you are so annoyed by my answer, which described the official Debian position on the AfferoGPL The one from 2008, and in a redundant message, since paultag already answered my question. *That* is the annoying thing. It really makes you look bad. I thought I could add some more information. You apparently didn't appreciate it. Oh, well, that's a pity. Do not trivialise your response. You’re acting on an agenda, one that can clearly be seen by you soliciting, unasked for, your opinion on this-and-that licence in EVERY thread here, disagreeing on principle. (Hey, that’s my job! ☺) Anyway: stop annoying people like that and try to be constructive by changing the official project stance on those problematic licences from within as an option. But first, “shut up”. bye, //mirabilos (with backing from other DDs in this group, by private mail) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130901t190342-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:15:25 + (UTC) Thorsten Glaser wrote: Francesco Poli invernomuto at paranoici.org writes: [...] So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: Francesco, I specifically did *not* ask for your personal opinion but whether it’s still acceptable for Debian main. You asked whether it's still acceptable for Debian main: I answered by describing what the FTP Masters think and what I myself think. The FTP Masters are the actual decision-makers for the Debian Project. My own opinion was just a side-note. I even wrote in my original message that I’m not exactly happy with AGPL either, but you writing your personal disagreement with everyone else in *every* *single* *thread* I happen upon on this newsgroup is, to say it frankly, annoying. (Especially since I, who normally is the annoying one, notices it.) You asked about the AfferoGPL and expressed your own dislike for the GPL, as a side-note. I am surprised to see that you are so annoyed by my answer, which described the official Debian position on the AfferoGPL and also my own dislike for the AfferoGPL itself, as a side-note. Please do not take this personal, merely as a suggestion to improve your communication behaviour (meaning, sometimes silence is golden; since paultag already answered my question your message had precisely zero “added value” to the thread). Paul just answered Yes to the main question. I thought I could add some more information. You apparently didn't appreciate it. Oh, well, that's a pity. Regards. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNbNRQYKd2I.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
Francesco Poli invernomuto at paranoici.org writes: In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a Yes, I know, but the discussion was raised, so I wanted to make sure. So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: Francesco, I specifically did *not* ask for your personal opinion but whether it’s still acceptable for Debian main. I even wrote in my original message that I’m not exactly happy with AGPL either, but you writing your personal disagreement with everyone else in *every* *single* *thread* I happen upon on this newsgroup is, to say it frankly, annoying. (Especially since I, who normally is the annoying one, notices it.) Please do not take this personal, merely as a suggestion to improve your communication behaviour (meaning, sometimes silence is golden; since paultag already answered my question your message had precisely zero “added value” to the thread). bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130829t171256-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote: Hi, there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. I was unable to follow them totally and remember there being raised at least two points: • The inability to provide security support for AGPL software (embargoed fixes)/ • The requirements for source delivery using the network once someone patches it. • The “viral” component, like GPL, only worsened by the above. I’d like to see whether there was anything decided, since I’ve been asked yesternight to sponsor some packages, and one of them contained AGPLv3+ code (and it’s a plugin for an LGPLv2.1+ program, so I asked the prospective maintainer to hit upstream with a big foamy cluebat about their choice of licence – which he did – since it’d Conflicts with e.g. GPLv2-only plugins). So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? Yes. Personally I’m ambiguous, but then, I’m not a fan of GPL either. bye, //mirabilos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/loom.20130827t135650-...@post.gmane.org
Re: AGPL request for summary of recent discussion
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:00:10 -0400 Paul R. Tagliamonte wrote: On Aug 27, 2013 8:15 AM, Thorsten Glaser t...@debian.org wrote: Hi, there were several threads around AGPL recently, mostly re-stirred due to Horracle using AGPLv3 for Berkeley DB. [...] In the recent discussions, the main concerns were about the switch of a library from a permissive non-copyleft license to a highly restrictive one (such as the GNU AfferoGPL v3) and about license compatibility issues between the library and other works linking with it. [...] So, is AGPLv3 still acceptable for main? Yes. The FTP Masters' decision about works licensed under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is to accept them into Debian main: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#17 For the record, I personally disagree with their conclusion: http://bugs.debian.org/495721#28 Other people have expressed disagreement and/or concerns. I hope this clarifies a bit. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgp28alrQRoFa.pgp Description: PGP signature
