Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 02:50:19PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? It was intended to be parsed as [providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so] to avoid requiring us to commit resources that we aren't able to do so comfortably, and/or distribute programs that we cannot legally distribute. So, the alternative is not ship the problematic files at all, altough we can waive that with something like Frederik's GR. Manoj, what is the plan for Frederik's GR ? is the idea to voting it separatedly from the rest of the more ideological GRs and amendments still something that can or will happen ? D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. I'd intended for this paragraph to be used as something that people working with hardware vendors to freely license the source to firmware could point to when the hardware vendors ask Does Debian actually want this? I don't believe it would require Debian to send any message to the hardware vendors, besides its presence in the resolution. Well, the resolution we will end up with will end up on slashdot, and probably be linked in major linux-related news sites and such. It will most assuredly end being read at least by the technical part of their driver staff. As thus, it would be more diplomatic, and in the long term more productive, to turn this last paragraph in a more soft way, maybe using terms like Recomend instead of Request and speaking of working with the hardware vendors or something like this i saw in another proposal. But then, someone with more grasp of the english lenguage should comment on this. Also, keep in mind that it will probably be the kernel team, and maybe even specifically me, who will end doing those requests. Another thing to keep in mind is that when i contacted broadcom and Andres followed on it, there was a reply, and in the end they clarified their licencing, while, i think it was Thomas, who probably posted a more aggresive mail did never even get a reply, and was probably dismissed as yet-another-fanatic or something such. Friendly, Sven Luther Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
== BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === seconded -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux - The Universal Operating System Well, i personally couldn't care less, since i don't use reiserfs, which is known to eat data for breakfast, but i disabled reiserfs support only because progreiserfs was kicked out of testing. -- Sven Luther, debian-devel@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I second the below proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFEXC+2WTeT3CRQaQRAhlPAJ9/TgKylWi5juN0a4HANt7bUNh1OQCfceBn VO68H5gh+OAlLPFNteY0eiE= =czmz -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I second this proposal. Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === If necessary, consider this an amendment under A.1.2; seconders, you may object to the changes under A.1.5. (If you decide to re-second this proposal, please only second the part between the === lines.) I've also attached the suggested content for the v.d.o webpages for this option in the interest of completeness. Don Armstrong 1: http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.3r2=1.4 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00228.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00235.html -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFFD5l+qMsB9b6fcOoRAhSnAJkBPKEyLoh5FO0kiTr7yuHIiDqTEACggFYa FDNpjfb68ifOFzbZzT161oE= =FSx9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Don Armstrong schrieb am Montag, den 18. September 2006: I also second this clarified proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === If necessary, consider this an amendment under A.1.2; seconders, you may object to the changes under A.1.5. (If you decide to re-second this proposal, please only second the part between the === lines.) I've also attached the suggested content for the v.d.o webpages for this option in the interest of completeness. Don Armstrong 1: http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.3r2=1.4 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00228.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00235.html -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu vproposer / p Don Armstrong [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /p vseconds / ol li René van Bevern [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Frank Küster [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Pierre Habouzit [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Alexander Wirt [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Kari Pahula [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Anibal Monsalve Salazar [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li /ol vtext / p Choice 1. The actual text of the resolution is as follows: /p h2DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
I second this proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === -- René van Bevern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://progn.org http://www.debian.org http://www.pro-linux.de pgpyFLW0TR7Ja.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Hi, I second this proposal: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === Marc -- BOFH #311: transient bus protocol violation pgp2bfLr33MVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL. I like this proposal, and will soon second it, but there are a few points i will like to clarify : C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. What I also find important is that hardware comes with good technical documentation, so that we can either write the software ourself, or modify what the hardware vendor provides. But I'm not really sure if this belongs in a GR, and how it should be put into it. We might want to do things with the hardware that the vendor did not design it for. For instance, most GPUs would be very useful doing vector math. It can do alot more FP operation than a normal CPU, and things like that. I need to look at what the other current proposols look like, but I think a combination of this with the apoligy might be a good proposol. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Seconded. On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? It was intended to be parsed as [providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so] to avoid requiring us to commit resources that we aren't able to do so comfortably, and/or distribute programs that we cannot legally distribute. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. I'd intended for this paragraph to be used as something that people working with hardware vendors to freely license the source to firmware could point to when the hardware vendors ask Does Debian actually want this? I don't believe it would require Debian to send any message to the hardware vendors, besides its presence in the resolution. Don Armstrong -- 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://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === Seconded. Anibal Monsalve Salazar -- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Enrico Zini wrote: In this view, I see two problems with your GR: 1. It needs a separate vote to affirm we happen to need it. Yes, that's by design. IMO such a exception to the SC/DFSG should be addressed explicitely by a GR doing exactly that and specifically setting aside the source requirements for specific works (or classes of work) in main. 2. It would make the exception etch-specific, just like we previously made a sarge-specific exception, and now we have to vote on the same issue again. I feel this issue is subtly different from the sarge question, but regardless, since it's something that compromises our ethics, I think it's good for us to revisit the decision each time and put pressure on ourselves to resolve the problem so that we don't have to compromise. Plus, we have to have a few good topics to flame about or the lists get boring. I understand that the urgent issue is are we ok in having sourceless firmware in etch?, and I think it's a waste of time to vote a GR that doesn't address that. The current GR is asking Does the Social Contract/DFSG require source for programmatic works in main which do not run on the CPU? as opposed to this question. I believe the answer to the current GR's question is yes, which is why I proposed this amendment. I agree that the question you're interested in answering is the more important question, which, so far, is the question which has not been asked or a GR proposed to deal with. [Presumably, it is to be proposed if my option succeeds.] In framing my amendment, I have assumed that this question was orthogonal, and so I've not dealt with it. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in The Conspiracy of Catiline by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will do so immediately at my return. == The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. === Obvious points for discussion: 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're installing/using/distributing is Free Software. 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. Don Armstrong i: At Big Time; usually somewhere around 9:30 and Hope (outer ring) with multiple domes (big-ish to small) and a few mobile domes as well in case someone wants to find me. ;-) -- There's
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Le ven 25 août 2006 08:51, Don Armstrong a écrit : I second that proposition = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = Obvious points for discussion: […] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. I've none, but would second a proposal without it as well if that's needed. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. and I also feel that's needed. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpZCqTX5y4KL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Don Armstrong wrote: D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can This should read 'hardware can exercise'; I had 'are able' here originally and didn't complete its deletion. exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. Don Armstrong -- America was far better suited to be the World's Movie Star. The world's tequila-addled pro-league bowler. The world's acerbic bi-polar stand-up comedian. Anything but a somber and tedious nation of socially responsible centurions. -- Bruce Sterling, _Distraction_ p122 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Don Armstrong schrieb am Donnerstag, den 24. August 2006: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. I second this proposal. As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will do so immediately at my return. == The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. === Obvious points for discussion: 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're installing/using/distributing is Free Software. 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. Don Armstrong i:
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Hello, I second this proposal independently of the presence of the D clause, although I prefer it being not removed. Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will do so immediately at my return. == The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. === Obvious points for discussion: 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're installing/using/distributing is Free Software. 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
René van Bevern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I second this proposal independently of the presence of the D clause, although I prefer it being not removed. Same for me; with or without are Regards, Frank Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will do so immediately at my return. == The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. === Obvious points for discussion: 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're installing/using/distributing is Free Software. 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. Thanks Don. I like the proposal, however I'm not seconding it. My position is: sourceless firmware sucks, but at the moment we happen to need it, just like sourceless BIOSes. In this view, I see two problems with your GR: 1. It needs a separate vote to affirm we happen to need it. 2. It would make the exception etch-specific, just like we previously made a sarge-specific exception, and now we have to vote on the same issue again. I understand that the urgent issue is are we ok in having sourceless firmware in etch?, and I think it's a waste of time to vote a GR that doesn't address that. Then, if an exception is to be defined, I'd it to be defined not in terms of some future release we can't predict, but in term of until we can't possibly do without. Unfortunately, my attempt[1] at wording this latter point didn't get it right, and I can't come out with anything better. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/08/msg00053.html Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 1024D/797EBFAB 2000-12-05 Enrico Zini [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 01:20:19PM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. Thanks Don. I like the proposal, however I'm not seconding it. My position is: sourceless firmware sucks, but at the moment we happen to need it, just like sourceless BIOSes. In this view, I see two problems with your GR: 1. It needs a separate vote to affirm we happen to need it. Enrico : ruoso made a first proposal for such a 'we need it' GR, and the kernel team, associated with maybe a part of the RM and d-i team, have another more full fledged proposal about this in preparation. 2. It would make the exception etch-specific, just like we previously made a sarge-specific exception, and now we have to vote on the same issue again. Yep. I understand that the urgent issue is are we ok in having sourceless firmware in etch?, and I think it's a waste of time to vote a GR that doesn't address that. Then, if an exception is to be defined, I'd it to be defined not in terms of some future release we can't predict, but in term of until we can't possibly do without. Unfortunately, my attempt[1] at wording this latter point didn't get it right, and I can't come out with anything better. If the etch+1 release schedule is again 18month, this would leave us with approximately two year to solve the issue, which should be plentiful, my guess is that it will take us approximately 6 month to a year, depending on how we do it, and how things go with licence clarification with upstream. But the etch freeze started almost a month ago, and it is now too late for etch. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
I second this proposal. On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. As I will (starting late sunday PDT) be away for a week and a few days at Burning Man,[i] I will be unable to appropriately respond to corrections and suggested amendments during that time. However, I will do so immediately at my return. == The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware are can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. === Obvious points for discussion: 1. I would really like to be able to commit to some form of installation support for users who need to be able to use non-free firmware to install their system; some more work is needed in d-i land, though to make sure that this is separated out and that it's trivial to have a Free system, and know that what you're installing/using/distributing is Free Software. 2. Distributing the huge source forms for non-programmatic works is going to be a problem. I don't think they're needed in the orig.tar.gz, because that would needlessly bloat the archive, and it's probably not required unless the works are copylefted. However, we should make an effort to encourage upstreams to make them available and likewise make them available to our users. [Even if it's just in people.debian.org/~you/ or similar and mentioned in the copyright file, it'd be a good step.] 3. If there is substantial objection to D, I will probably remove it; however firmware, whether we happen to distribute it or not, is a hazard to user's freedom to modify the functioning of their computers. 4. Finally, if in the context of the release of etch, we need to compromise our ideals and accept programmatic works without source, we should do so by specifically exempting them from DFSG 2 for the purpose of releasing etch by a GR which needs to meet the 3:1 requirement instead of attempting to define ourselves into such a position, especially when source code is clearly a desirable thing to have from our users and our perspective. Don Armstrong
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 11:51:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. I like your proposal too. As for D, maybe we could word it a bit differently, as it will be a arduous task, with little success chances in the general case. Maybe we can arrive to some kind of agreement with manufacturer to have them free the source of their firmwares after some time or something. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Alexander Wirt schrieb am Freitag, den 25. August 2006: Don Armstrong schrieb am Donnerstag, den 24. August 2006: I'd like to propose the following option to the current GR process. I second this proposal. I have to say a few mores word to it. It would be fully ok for me if we release etch with this non-free firmware, but this problem should be adressed with etch+1. Alex signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: René van Bevern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I second this proposal independently of the presence of the D clause, although I prefer it being not removed. Same for me Ah, yes, and to make things clear: While I second this proposal, I still think that resolving the firmware issue can be delayed until etch+1, even if it hurts. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive) pgp0rp5DqhIKN.pgp Description: PGP signature
