Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 02:08:29PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 00:35 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: 3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together with the source of the Debian system ? Have you considered the harm? It means that users can no longer assume that whatever is in the source packages can be distributed by them under the DFSG. Especially since your proposal is all about making copyright information harder to locate, you are making things far harder. Hello Thomas, Indeed, there are pros and cons for my proposal. I have mentionned in my first message that with our current practice, our users know that – human errors excepted – everything they get along with the sources of the Debian system is DFSG-free. http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20100124144741.gd13...@kunpuu.plessy.org However, even when all the files are DFSG-free, one can not blindly redistribute or modify them, because we distribute works with an advertising clause, or works that require to rename the programs in case of modification. Therefore, one has anyway to check the licensing details for any DFGS-free file redistributed. About the visibility of the non-DFSG-free files: I wrote my proposal to be broad, not as a patch to the Policy. If the GR is voted and accepted, nothing prevents the Policy to require that non-DFSG-free files are marked as such in debian/copyright. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Hello again everybody, I did not have much time recently, so here is a summary email that tries to answer in a single message all comments that I received in public or private. 1) About the exhaustive reproduction of all copyright notices. I have the feeling that there is a consensus that we do not need to do what laws and licenses are not commanding, but unless votes are counted with a GR, this is only my feeeling and nothing else. I think that a GR is the right instrument to check the consensus over big changes, and that the relaxation of our policy of documenting all copyright notices is a big change. A GR that is accepted by a large majority is not necessarly a waste of time, because it dissipates misunderstantings that can arise with tacite agreements. But yes, there are alternatives, like electing a DPL that supports this change in his platform. The proposition that I make is deliberatly not a Policy change. First of all, it would introduce diffcult debates whether it can be edited later without another GR. Second, I do not propose to replace the definition of debian/copyright. In particular, this GR says nothing about other contents of this file such as the URL to the sources. Rather, if accepted this GR would be the green light for a Policy change. 2) About the source of the Debian system. I would like to take the opportunity of this message to make a clarification on what I wrote about ignoring the DFSG (http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20100125010005.gf13...@kunpuu.plessy.org). The DFSG are guidelines, and it is our social contract that tells us when to follow them. We must not ignore them in these situations. What I am arguing is that some files that are in the orig.tar files distributed in the source packages of the Debian system are not part of the source of the system, and that for them the DFSG do not apply. This is what I meant when I answered yes to MJ Ray when he asked me if I proposed to ignore the DFSG. Similarly, I do not think that it violates the title of the point one of our social contract (“Debian will remain 100% free”). The Debian project maintains and distributes non-free packages, so I conclude that the title – concise by nature – is about the Debian system, and not about everything made by the Debian project. Maybe it is because I am a biologist, but for me ‘Debian system’ means something functional, something that one can run to operate a machine. Without its sources, that system is not free. But the collection files distributed in our source packages do not define what the Debian system is: some ‘convenience copies’ of software libraries are ignored and we do not provide support for them ; they are not part of the Debian system. Moreover the possession of only the sources is not is enough for making and using a free system: one can not do anything with an empty computer and the sources alone. For me, it is the combination of the binary programs and their source that make a free operating system and define its boundaries. If on the medium that contains the system's sources there are other files that have no function in the system, then it is my point of view that they are not part of it. 3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together with the source of the Debian system ? There are clear benefits. Firstly, would allow to use a bit-identical source material as distributyed upstream. In the future, it would allow to distribute source packages based on repository clones that contain freely redistributable non-DFSG-free material, without having to engage in complex extirpations over the entire repository's history (since we would still be distributing the files after deleting them from the head). There is also a time benefit. Repacing a package is less than one hour of work, but multiply it by many packages, and it becomes a significant amount of time. Lastly, it is not fun, and having fun is a very important motivation in volunteer work. Doing boring, repetitive and not fun work leads people to make errors, which waste other people's time even is they are as minor as forgetting to add a mangle rule to debian/watch in order to take the ~dfsg suffix of the Debian upstream version. Here is a revised version of the GR proposal (still unsigned to underline that it is still a draft), that I hope clarifies point 2) Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan General resolution: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages. Motion A: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but not necessary. Motion B: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Mon, 2010-02-08 at 00:35 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: 3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together with the source of the Debian system ? Have you considered the harm? It means that users can no longer assume that whatever is in the source packages can be distributed by them under the DFSG. Especially since your proposal is all about making copyright information harder to locate, you are making things far harder. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Hi, On 24/01/10 15:47, Charles Plessy wrote: The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but not necessary. I'd like to hear our ftpmasters' opinion on this (CC'ing them). As I expressed some months ago on -devel, I agree with this, but since they may be responsible for what is distributed on our archive (I'm not sure whether they are or not), I don't think forcing this through a GR is the best idea. A lawyer has been consulted AFAIK, so this is already being done (although slowly). Also, the wording suggests that the requirement to specify where the source was downloaded (and everything else we write on debian/copyright that is neither the license nor the copyright holders) is no longer required, but only encouraged. Is that on purpose? If not, maybe the wording should be changed. The Debian source packages can contain files that are not free according to our guidelines, provided that they are not used to build nor distributed in the binary packages that constitute the Debian system. I don't like this one. Rather than ignoring the DFSG, I think it should be changed instead (and I'm against doing so, FWIW). Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:47:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: 2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources. Since you are a DD, I suppose you have read the social contract. What is its first item ? Ah, yes ! Debian will remain 100% free. Are you suggesting a GR to change our social contract ? If you don't like the current social contract, then why did you abide by it ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Mo, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01 (CET), Luk Claes wrote: Yes, exactly. In this draft GR I propose to ignore some DFSG-non-free files, which includes sourceless files. Our social contract only stipulates that the Debian sytstem must be DFSG-free. We already have a non-free section for the non-free works that we would like to distribute for the purpose of being used with the our operating system. I think that our social contract also allow us to distribute innert non-free files together with the source of the Debian system as long as they do not take part of it. And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? Is this a threat or 'just' an insult? The source is part of the Debian system as you call it, so what it contains should be DFSG free. This is your opinion/interpretation on our foundation documents. Since Charles obviously doesn't follow here, a vote to determine consensus on this disagreement seems appropriate. -- Gruesse/greetings, Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Hi Charles, On Montag, 25. Januar 2010, Charles Plessy wrote: In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ Yes, exactly. Thanks for clarifying. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:47 AM, Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org wrote: 2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources. Is mailing upstreams or writing debian/rules get-orig-source really so problematic that you feel this is needed? The former is usually very little work (and should be preferred) and the latter is usually only slightly more. Such files waste space in upstream tarballs so they probably would appreciate being notified about that. Once they learn about autotools 'make dist' / 'make distcheck' they can let autotools make the tarballs to prevent sourceless Windows binaries from being accidentally added to them. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Dear all, a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. 1) The copyright attributions. The inventory of copyright notices that we distribute together with our packages is checked at the first upload only. At this step already, some packages with incomplete lists are accepted. For other packages, new copyright notices added upstream during updates are missed and the Debian copyright file is not updated. As a result, for the purpose of having an exhaustive listing of all the copyright notices present in the Debian source packages, the debian/copyright files are not a reliable source of information. I do not think that we have the manpower, nor perhaps the will, to do this inventory with the same aim of perfection as we have for other matters like security or stability for instance. Since not all license require to reproduce the copyright notices in the documentation of our binary packages, I propose to give up this self-imposed requirement, and simply focus on respecting the licenses. I have considered whether doing so would increase the work load of our archive administrators. I have some experience of NEW package inspection (http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview). In my experience, the debian/copyright file is not an aid to the reviewing task, since the very goal of this task is to check if nothing has been omitted or incorrectly copied. The license of the redistributed files have to be inspected anyway, and at this moment it is usually clear whether the license has some clauses about the reproduction of copyright notices. 2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources. Some upstream archives contain files that are not free according to the DFSG, but that can be omitted without affecting the programs distributed in our binary packages. Typical examples include non-free RFCs, sourceless PDFs, GFDL documentation, copies of scientific articles licensed with a clause prohibiting commercial use, or builds of the program for MS-Windows. Repacking the upstream sources to remove such non-free files does not provide any additional freedom. Among the disadvantages of repacking, there is the work overhead for the packager, and the loss of transparency for our users as we do not distribute a bit-wise identical source archive as upstream anymore. Among the advantages, our users know that if they download our source packages, there is non-DFSG-free file in. I think that this advantage is not as big as we think. Since we allow licenses with an advertisement clause and licenses that forbid to reuse the same program name for derived works, our users have to check the license of our packages in any case and can not blindly redistribute modified versions without checking for the above two points. So the presence of legally redistributable files that do not satisfy the DFSG in our source package would not change our user experience, especially that the target is files that can be ignored. Most importantly, none of these files would be distributed in binary packages anyway. According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can be said that they are not part of the Debian system. Therefore, despite what I propose is a big change from our traditions, I do not think that it is a change that contradicts our foundation documents. Draft of the GR --- I propose three motions that can be seconded separately. The first implements the point 1), the second points 1) and 2). Given that point 2) is likely to be far more controversial than 1), I do not think that there is a need for a motion that addresses 2) but not 1). Lastly, remembering the bitter experience of the two GRs of 2008, I propose a third amendment to strongly reject the GR and blame for having submitted it, in case I strongly misunderstood the situation and harmed the project with this GR. Also, it allows the ‘further discussion’ default option to really mean that more discussion is needed. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan General resolution: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages. Motion A: The Debian
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Please sign your message if you want to propose a GR. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:47:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Dear all, a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. 1) The copyright attributions. [...lots of text snipped...] I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but does this really really really need a GR? -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Wouter Verhelst wou...@debian.org writes: I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but does this really really really need a GR? If it could be arranged, a way to avoid the GR would be to have the ftpmasters publicly express (ideally in this discussion thread) their position in agreement with one of Charles's proposed options. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\ so, Brain, but it's a miracle that this one grew back.” —_Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org [...] my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. As will become clear, I disagree with at least one significant point of the premise, but I'm also not clear that this is merely a GR to show consensus. The copyright documentation practices are mostly the decision of the ftpmasters (although advised by various people), so this GR is actually overriding their decision. What is their view of these ideas? My personal conclusion is also that this time could be better spent, but for it to be safe to do that would require changes in copyright law, so you would be best off campaigning for liberalisation of copyright and related rights as a first step. According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can be said that they are not part of the Debian system. [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian system. In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org H Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian system. In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ Yes, exactly. In this draft GR I propose to ignore some DFSG-non-free files, which includes sourceless files. Our social contract only stipulates that the Debian sytstem must be DFSG-free. We already have a non-free section for the non-free works that we would like to distribute for the purpose of being used with the our operating system. I think that our social contract also allow us to distribute innert non-free files together with the source of the Debian system as long as they do not take part of it. Doing this on purpose would of course be a big hypocrisy. We could mention in the GR that it is not acceptable to repack an upstream tarball for adding a non-free file, nor to include some in the debian diff or tarball component of the source package, nor for Debian to distribute its own developments as source packages containing non-free files since we have to show the way (note that not all packages in native format are Debian developments). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org H Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian system. In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ Yes, exactly. In this draft GR I propose to ignore some DFSG-non-free files, which includes sourceless files. Our social contract only stipulates that the Debian sytstem must be DFSG-free. We already have a non-free section for the non-free works that we would like to distribute for the purpose of being used with the our operating system. I think that our social contract also allow us to distribute innert non-free files together with the source of the Debian system as long as they do not take part of it. And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? The source is part of the Debian system as you call it, so what it contains should be DFSG free. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[OT] Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? For the record, I will not answer in this thread to other posts that are insulting, question people's mental health, or suggest that people who disagree should leave. -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy wrote: Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? For the record, I will not answer in this thread to other posts that are insulting, question people's mental health, or suggest that people who disagree should leave. So why do you expect us to do that with your GR draft? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
