Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On 2013-03-19 16:39, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: Dear candidates, do you think that libechonest [3] should be called free software? As it requires software outside of the distribution to function, do you think it should be moved to contrib? What about s3cmd [4] then? I don't think that having the facility to fetch or process non-free data makes software non-free. It is normal for tools to be agnostic about the licensing of data they process, even in cases where it's almost certainly non-free. For example, the licensing of DVB broadcast content is very unlikely to be free, but I don't think we should move all DVB programs to contrib. However, I would agree that making our users dependent on non-free data sources is bad. This kind of problem isn't new: an old example is the track information used in CD ripping tools. In that case community efforts created free alternatives that the tools could use instead. As a general principle, we might want to discourage default installations of packages from automatically pulling in non-free data and thus encouraging users to become dependent on it. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/6adceccb48e947c36d8a21ad4610e...@www.morayallan.com
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: You can use flashplugin-nonfree to download a piece of software that has a nonfree license, which is then installed on your system; the result is that you now have a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. To be able to reach this situation on a system that only has main enabled would be utterly wrong. You can use pidgin-facebookchat to talk to a non-free service; but whatever you do, the result will *never* be that you end up with a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. As such, I don't think it's necessary that you not be able to reach this on a system that only has main enabled. OK, you seem to draw the line where non-free is installed or not on the local system. That makes somewhat sense to me. But then the part which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function in debian-policy should be replaced by something like which causes software outside of the distribution to be installed on the local system. What one uses a particular piece of software for, to access a non-free service or anything else, is none of our business. Is it sad that non-free services exist? Yes. Is it bad that we have free software in main, that allows users to extract their data from these services? Definitely not. Is it bad that we have free software that allows users to communicate with non-free services? Nope. We have plenty of software in main that allow things like this, and that's a good thing. Our task is to allow our users to get things done. As long as the software we distribute is free, it does not matter much whether it requires a non-free service or not - we do not distribute the service. By installing software that talks to a non-free service, the system remains Free, that's where our jurisdiction ends. We can, and we should encourage using free services, but whatever a particular software talks to, does not affect its classification according to the DFSG. The whole cloud stuff is a whole different can of worms. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87li9b8y7l@galadriel.madhouse-project.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On 03/21/2013 11:52 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: I think the outcome of moving a package that falls in the requires external stuff from main to contrib would rarely qualify as silly. Take for example the twitter perl packages. The API is changing (of course that is something outside of Debian's control,). As a consequence, those packages are now up for removal from testing (since they're going to be broken for an entire stable release): http://bugs.debian.org/703257 If instead those packages were in contrib, which is of course considered not supported, if/when those external interfaces break, then at least the user knew upfront that they were taking a risk that their unsupported software may someday break. Part of the nuance is living up to user expectations. Would you put something like Pidgin in contrib? And to make sure you wont dismiss my point and answer that it has support for XMPP wich is an open protocol: and what if it had only support for the non-free protocols, like only MSN, AIM, Yahoo and such, and zero support for the open protocols like IRC and XMPP? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/514aa292.2030...@debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On 03/21/2013 02:02 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 03/21/2013 11:52 AM, Michael Gilbert wrote: I think the outcome of moving a package that falls in the requires external stuff from main to contrib would rarely qualify as silly. Take for example the twitter perl packages. The API is changing (of course that is something outside of Debian's control,). As a consequence, those packages are now up for removal from testing (since they're going to be broken for an entire stable release): http://bugs.debian.org/703257 If instead those packages were in contrib, which is of course considered not supported, if/when those external interfaces break, then at least the user knew upfront that they were taking a risk that their unsupported software may someday break. Part of the nuance is living up to user expectations. Would you put something like Pidgin in contrib? And to make sure you wont dismiss my point and answer that it has support for XMPP wich is an open protocol: and what if it had only support for the non-free protocols, like only MSN, AIM, Yahoo and such, and zero support for the open protocols like IRC and XMPP? I withdraw this, pidgin-facebookchat is a better example... :) Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/514aa3a4.3080...@debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 02:07:40AM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Steve Langasek wrote: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: 3. One test I've been taught to use to reason about free software is the Desert Island test [2] which starts by: Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. Obviously, software that are only frontends to unreproducible “cloud” services do not pass the desert island test. This is a mischaracterization of the Desert Island test as it was formulated on debian-legal. The Desert Island test is about whether a user can *comply with the license* of the software on a desert island when they have no contact with the outside world. That the software may not be *useful* to them on a desert island is a separate question, and applies to many sorts of software, not just those used for connecting to particular services over the Internet. Then again, this is a misinterpretation of the fundamental question Jeremy has attempted to pose. I am only addressing the factually incorrect interpretation of the Desert Island test, because such inaccuracies, if allowed to stand uncorrected, have a nasty habit of spreading. So no, I did not misinterpret his question - but as I am not a candidate, my thoughts on that question are out of scope for this discussion. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: 1. Some software Debian distribute are actually only useful when connected to the Internet to access services for which the source code is unavailable. 2. The Debian policy states (emphasis is mine): # 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian distribution, but **which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function**. Every package in contrib must comply with the DFSG. 3. One test I've been taught to use to reason about free software is the Desert Island test [2] which starts by: [2] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. Obviously, software that are only frontends to unreproducible “cloud” services do not pass the desert island test. Dear candidates, do you think that libechonest [3] should be called free software? As it requires software outside of the distribution to function, do you think it should be moved to contrib? What about s3cmd [4] then? [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libe/libechonest.html [4] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/s3cmd.html Good question. See also for example bug 681659. I don't know why pidgin-facebookchat would belong in section main while flashplugin-nonfree would belong section contrib. Both packages contain software that can freely be redistributed but require software outside of the distribution to function. Where to draw the line ? Do you think that it's a fight that's worth fighting? It's not about legal problems the Debian project could get in trouble with. But it is related to one of the core goals of the Debian project. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130320064732.ga23...@master.debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Mi, 20 mar 13, 06:47:32, Bart Martens wrote: Good question. See also for example bug 681659. I don't know why pidgin-facebookchat would belong in section main while flashplugin-nonfree would belong section contrib. Both packages contain software that can freely be redistributed but require software outside of the distribution to function. Where to draw the line ? Not sure flashplugin-nonfree is a good example here, since it is only a downloader for non-free software (the plugin itself). Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: note that free software interfaces to proprietary cloud platforms are frequently used to manipulate the data in those platforms including pull data *out* of those platforms. It would be quite ironic if we refused to include in the distribution the tools required to pull one's data out of non-free platforms. An interface to facebook or to twitter or to the internet movie database or to websites with stock quotes may be freely redistributed but requires software outside of the distribution to function. Why do we make exceptions depending on how ironic things are ? Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130320071549.gc23...@master.debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Hi Bart, On 20-03-13 07:47, Bart Martens wrote: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: Dear candidates, do you think that libechonest [3] should be called free software? As it requires software outside of the distribution to function, do you think it should be moved to contrib? What about s3cmd [4] then? [3] http://packages.qa.debian.org/libe/libechonest.html [4] http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/s3cmd.html Good question. See also for example bug 681659. I don't know why pidgin-facebookchat would belong in section main while flashplugin-nonfree would belong section contrib. You can use flashplugin-nonfree to download a piece of software that has a nonfree license, which is then installed on your system; the result is that you now have a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. To be able to reach this situation on a system that only has main enabled would be utterly wrong. You can use pidgin-facebookchat to talk to a non-free service; but whatever you do, the result will *never* be that you end up with a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. As such, I don't think it's necessary that you not be able to reach this on a system that only has main enabled. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5149730e.80...@uter.be
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Steve Langasek: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: 3. One test I've been taught to use to reason about free software is the Desert Island test [2] which starts by: Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. Obviously, software that are only frontends to unreproducible “cloud” services do not pass the desert island test. This is a mischaracterization of the Desert Island test as it was formulated on debian-legal. The Desert Island test is about whether a user can *comply with the license* of the software on a desert island when they have no contact with the outside world. Thanks for the correcting my runaway thoughts. :) I'll need to come up with other tools to think about the danger about freedom I perceive from the “cloud”… -- Jérémy Bobbio.''`. lu...@debian.org: :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism `. `'` `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: note that free software interfaces to proprietary cloud platforms are frequently used to manipulate the data in those platforms including pull data *out* of those platforms. It would be quite ironic if we refused to include in the distribution the tools required to pull one's data out of non-free platforms. An interface to facebook or to twitter or to the internet movie database or to websites with stock quotes may be freely redistributed but requires software outside of the distribution to function. Why do we make exceptions depending on how ironic things are ? Because, similar to how all evil plans for taking over the world should be run past a fifth grader first, all grand principles of ideology should be checked for whether their actual outcomes are silly. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vc8mqguw@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: You can use flashplugin-nonfree to download a piece of software that has a nonfree license, which is then installed on your system; the result is that you now have a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. To be able to reach this situation on a system that only has main enabled would be utterly wrong. You can use pidgin-facebookchat to talk to a non-free service; but whatever you do, the result will *never* be that you end up with a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. As such, I don't think it's necessary that you not be able to reach this on a system that only has main enabled. OK, you seem to draw the line where non-free is installed or not on the local system. That makes somewhat sense to me. But then the part which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function in debian-policy should be replaced by something like which causes software outside of the distribution to be installed on the local system. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130320175556.ge28...@master.debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:35:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: note that free software interfaces to proprietary cloud platforms are frequently used to manipulate the data in those platforms including pull data *out* of those platforms. It would be quite ironic if we refused to include in the distribution the tools required to pull one's data out of non-free platforms. An interface to facebook or to twitter or to the internet movie database or to websites with stock quotes may be freely redistributed but requires software outside of the distribution to function. Why do we make exceptions depending on how ironic things are ? Because, similar to how all evil plans for taking over the world should be run past a fifth grader first, all grand principles of ideology should be checked for whether their actual outcomes are silly. Which is why I'm open to change debian-policy or move packages from main to contrib depending on what's the least silly. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130320180025.gf28...@master.debian.org
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 09:27:58AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: You can use pidgin-facebookchat to talk to a non-free service; but whatever you do, the result will *never* be that you end up with a system which has some non-DFSG-free software installed. As such, I don't think it's necessary that you not be able to reach this on a system that only has main enabled. That's my interpretation as well. OK, you seem to draw the line where non-free is installed or not on the local system. That makes somewhat sense to me. But then the part which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function in debian-policy should be replaced by something like which causes software outside of the distribution to be installed on the local system. I don't consider Policy canonical for this wording. If we're going to make a change to Policy, I would prefer to remove Policy's attempted elaboration and just copy the language verbatim from the Social Contract. It's the Social Contract that is canonical, and I think any updates should be done via updates to the Social Contract. I'm very uncomfortable with attempting to deal with something this politically sensitive via the Policy process. contrib software satisfies the DFSG, so the relevant portion of the Social Contract is point #1: We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is free in the document entitled The Debian Free Software Guidelines. We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. The debate is therefore over what require the use of means. I think one can make an argument that an installer package that automatically downloads and installs non-free software does require the use of that non-free software, although it's sort of a weird definition of use (since it doesn't actually require that you USE the Flash plugin; it's just sitting on your disk). I think that argument gets weaker and weaker for software that interfaces with external services; in that case, not only is the require the use of part debatable, so is the component part. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878v5hg4gr@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Jérémy Bobbio lu...@debian.org writes: I'll need to come up with other tools to think about the danger about freedom I perceive from the “cloud”… For the record, I think most of us are on the same page about the danger. I certainly agree with your concern; I'm just not sure that the organization of the Debian archive is an effective way to try to address that danger. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/874ng5g4d5@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 07:35:19AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: note that free software interfaces to proprietary cloud platforms are frequently used to manipulate the data in those platforms including pull data *out* of those platforms. It would be quite ironic if we refused to include in the distribution the tools required to pull one's data out of non-free platforms. An interface to facebook or to twitter or to the internet movie database or to websites with stock quotes may be freely redistributed but requires software outside of the distribution to function. Why do we make exceptions depending on how ironic things are ? Because, similar to how all evil plans for taking over the world should be run past a fifth grader first, all grand principles of ideology should be checked for whether their actual outcomes are silly. Which is why I'm open to change debian-policy or move packages from main to contrib depending on what's the least silly. Good point. :) Sorry, I was being too snarky. Although changing the wording is, I think, a bit more complicated; I commented in a different part of the thread. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87zjxxepre@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Russ Allbery r...@debian.org wrote: Bart Martens ba...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 05:09:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: note that free software interfaces to proprietary cloud platforms are frequently used to manipulate the data in those platforms including pull data *out* of those platforms. It would be quite ironic if we refused to include in the distribution the tools required to pull one's data out of non-free platforms. An interface to facebook or to twitter or to the internet movie database or to websites with stock quotes may be freely redistributed but requires software outside of the distribution to function. Why do we make exceptions depending on how ironic things are ? Because, similar to how all evil plans for taking over the world should be run past a fifth grader first, all grand principles of ideology should be checked for whether their actual outcomes are silly. I think the outcome of moving a package that falls in the requires external stuff from main to contrib would rarely qualify as silly. Take for example the twitter perl packages. The API is changing (of course that is something outside of Debian's control,). As a consequence, those packages are now up for removal from testing (since they're going to be broken for an entire stable release): http://bugs.debian.org/703257 If instead those packages were in contrib, which is of course considered not supported, if/when those external interfaces break, then at least the user knew upfront that they were taking a risk that their unsupported software may someday break. Part of the nuance is living up to user expectations. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CANTw=mpg5d8_dbrmrttrc8p7awvqkm8kwa0nwrn5agqh_bk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
Hi all, I propose that either the discussion is reshaped to be more interactive with the candidates, or it is moved to another channel where a broader participation is expected. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130321035944.ga20...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: [all candidates] Return to the desert island (cont.)
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:39:29PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: 3. One test I've been taught to use to reason about free software is the Desert Island test [2] which starts by: Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. Obviously, software that are only frontends to unreproducible “cloud” services do not pass the desert island test. This is a mischaracterization of the Desert Island test as it was formulated on debian-legal. The Desert Island test is about whether a user can *comply with the license* of the software on a desert island when they have no contact with the outside world. That the software may not be *useful* to them on a desert island is a separate question, and applies to many sorts of software, not just those used for connecting to particular services over the Internet. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
