Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. Yes, I just felt it important to clarify that I (and I assume most people debating this issue) are actually discussing the requirements of the SC relating to documentation as opposed to yours (and others) effective requirements. In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering to as foolish was misplaced. Don Armstrong -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering to as foolish was misplaced. Uh, if that wasn't the debate you were referring to, then it wasn't the one being characterised as foolish in the paragraph you quoted... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't see you suggesting that we should. That argument doesn't hold water. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 11:42:38AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of this. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199811/msg02368.html ] Certain kinds of documentation or other non-software works may have ] further restrictions. ... ] (b) A document which states an opinion, as an opinion, need not be ] modifiable. Ian's proposal was rejected as being too formal, but was widely seen and discussed. At the time though, this particular point was accepted without argument, afaics and afaicr. Thanks for finding this; since this (and much else) was before my time, it's rather hard to get a big-picture look at the historical question -- this helps a lot. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't see you suggesting that we should. That argument doesn't hold water. If we could do it, that'd be a great idea. I don't think we could though; maintaining stuff on win32 systems is hard, which is why we use linux systems after all. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. Yes, I just felt it important to clarify that I (and I assume most people debating this issue) are actually discussing the requirements of the SC relating to documentation as opposed to yours (and others) effective requirements. In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering to as foolish was misplaced. Don Armstrong -- There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence. -- Jeremy S. Anderson http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 01:17:20AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. In short, the characterization of the debate to which I was refering to as foolish was misplaced. Uh, if that wasn't the debate you were referring to, then it wasn't the one being characterised as foolish in the paragraph you quoted... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't see you suggesting that we should. That argument doesn't hold water. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:54:58AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? It benefits some of our users. We've been here before. Distributing binaries of mozilla for win32 would benefit some of our users as well, but I don't see you suggesting that we should. That argument doesn't hold water. If we could do it, that'd be a great idea. I don't think we could though; maintaining stuff on win32 systems is hard, which is why we use linux systems after all. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all. There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction - rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow responsible for this. I don't understand you here. Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those following along) So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. It's just another assertion of a vague problem without any detail. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all. There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction - rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow responsible for this. I don't understand you here. Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those following along) Ok, but the above distinction is an example of bad faith on your part. You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to a assertion about GFDL documentation does not need to be removed. Since my claim was that GFDL documentation would need to be removed if your resolution passed there's no need for me to prove the opposite. So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. It's just another assertion of a vague problem without any detail. Not if it is a reference to my assertion about dropping GFDL licensed documentation from main. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs, since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with the non-DFSG-free documentation in main. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms for at least some of our users. I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client enhances anyone's freedom in any way. I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...). Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't come from any of our guidelines. Well, afaik non-free packages are ones that *are useful for some of our users* that we are *free to distribute*. The only freedom we require is that one: that we can stick it on our mirror network and not get sued. You could say that any piece of software enhances the freedom of the user -- that Microsoft Office lets the user use, well, Microsoft Office, and that's a choice they wouldn't have had beforehand. I can't see any other way in which any given piece of non-free software offers some freedoms for at least some of our users though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions, to word games). You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise] So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. More nonsensical handwaving. This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is removed. Handwaving is not rationale. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That because we're violating the social contract. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. The DFSG itself uses the term programs in some places and not in others. I can see some sense in saying that points where it specifically uses the term program don't apply to documentation if that documentation isn't supplied in the form of a program. But where the DFSG uses the term works I don't see any sense in claiming that it's talking only about programs and not about documentation. Which is the case for guideline #3. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs, since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL. I don't see the sense in that -- the social contract explicitly states that the DFSG defines what it means by free software, and the DFSG already addresses this issue differently from what you presume I'll be advocating. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with the non-DFSG-free documentation in main. That was intended to be a reference to a GFDL secondary section as a non-modifiable work. I've not done any kind of exhaustive look at this issue, but if you want to talk about other issues that's fine by me. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions, to word games). I never claimed I was trying to give examples OF how some people have inconsistent opinions. I claimed that giving examples TO people who have inconsistent opinions was the only way I knew of for dealing with that situation. You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise] You might also have made other claims, but that claim is clearly illustrated in the first quoted paragraph at the top of this message. So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. More nonsensical handwaving. This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is removed. Handwaving is not rationale. I agree that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines is independent of whether or not non-free is removed. However, it's pretty blatent that if non-free is not removed then doesn't satisfy DFSG could go in non-free, and if is removed then doesn't satisfy DFSG should also be removed. Unless... Are you suggesting that we will continue to distribute non-DFSG works after your proposal, and that the only change is that we won't distribute them in non-free (and the package maintainers will put some other tag on them, besides non-free)? Yeah, if you consider that to be the obvious outcome, then I can see how you'd consider my statements to be nonsense. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well. I stand corrected. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL? No, just the one most indicative that we might need to fix the DFSG. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. A case can probably be made (if one has the patience to make it) that we have also been distributing non-free software in main since the beginning, by virtue of various bugs/oversights (including some as-yet undiscovered). So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of this. Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG, and various other people saying it was never really discussed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. It's my observation that a number of people have inconsistent outlooks on various aspects of the non-free issue. For example, consider the thread which contains repeated claims about human ethics and the evilness non-free software. Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 20:09:55 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have over-edited it. All general purpose computers I know of use magnetic media, the license appears to not allow distribution onto such media. That wasn't the intention. I wanted to contaminate other software distributed alongside it on floppy disks. Hard disks should be fine. I'll reword that if necessary. On top of that it's patent restricted, which limits use. Only if you don't have a valid licence for that patent and task. On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? This reminds me of a rotten apple argument -- apples with minor blemishes can be useful to make pie. But, just because you can make an apple pie with apples which have any sort of blemish doesn't mean that an apple which combines all those blemishes is worth anything. In that case, you cannot say that every apple must be missing some of those blemishes, which I think is a fair analogue for your proposed wording change about non-free. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? Because if it is the case, it is not a result of current practice. You need to show that causal link, while I am trying to show a counter-example which could be a non-free package under current practice. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an example of it. Are you saying your example was not absurd? My example is extreme, but not absurd. Anthony Towns's post suggests it may not even be extreme. On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd. That works for definitions of current practice which involve only hypothetical practices. It is not a hypothetical practice, for it is documented and followed. I think current practice is that shown in the Debian Policy Manual, unless you can show better. You've yet to provide a concrete example where current practice would be changed. It may be imperfect, but the Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence v2 is an example of something which would be acceptable to current practices, but not to your revised practices. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. Is this all just a word game to you? There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. I don't consider your theory to be current practice. The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are commercial. And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? As you know, I
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:01:05PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote here. I hadn't looked at that. Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 01:31:15 + Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been some fairly arbitrary decisions made by that community. Can you please support your claim? I am a contributor to debian-legal and I have not seen that assertion. Question 8 of the DFSG FAQ at http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html seems to contradict you. Many -legal contributors have helped to write that document. There is also Andrew Suffield's explanation at http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines I'm sure there are occasional goofs. We're all human AFAIK. If you want to reopen discussion about a bad decision, please do. From what I've seen, -legal usually tries to fix bugs when found. But if a strong consensus formed that something was non-free, I think you need new information that didn't appear in the original discussion, or be really really sure that the first set of contributors got it wrong in a way that you explain. I am disappointed that you have supported an amendment to the remove non-free GR which is mostly unrelated to the proposal. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. [I'll want to confer with my sponsors, once I'm happy with the draft, to see what they think, but first I need to make sure I'm happy with the draft.] Is this all just a word game to you? No. What is the positive reason for debian to distribute anything in non-free? It benefits some of our users. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is foolish. De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Don Armstrong -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect one. (Please switch off your attribution mangler.) Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. Thank you! Why? Please will you reintroduce the phrase The software in these directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system? Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove non-free GR? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:27PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect one. Exactly. (Please switch off your attribution mangler.) I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. Thank you! Why? Because Anthony Towns showed me some examples where it wouldn't make sense. Please will you reintroduce the phrase The software in these directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system? I'm considering that. However, I feel that if I do so I should also include a definition of what the Debian system means. Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove non-free GR? I'm dropping changes to sections 2-4. However, section 1 explicitly mentions non-free, and some of the ambiguity in the social contract about non-free is present there. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing
that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG
incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of
this.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199811/msg02368.html
] Certain kinds of documentation or other non-software works may have
] further restrictions.
...
] (b) A document which states an opinion, as an opinion, need not be
] modifiable.
Ian's proposal was rejected as being too formal, but was widely seen and
discussed. At the time though, this particular point was accepted without
argument, afaics and afaicr.
Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating
he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG,
I find that a bit hard to believe, even with Bruce's assertion. All the
GNU docs have always been non-DFSG-free [0], eg, and imagining that everyone
in Debian just happened not to notice seems quite a stretch to me.
and various other people saying it was never really discussed.
Not everything that's obvious gets discussed, even on Debian lists.
Cheers,
aj
[0] gcc's manual as of v2.8.1, March 1998, says:
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided
also that the sections entitled ``GNU General Public License,''
``Funding for Free Software,'' and ``Protect Your Freedom---Fight
`Look And Feel'@w{}'' are included exactly as in the original, and
provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under
the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is foolish. De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of people have inconsistent outlooks
on various aspects of the non-free issue. For example, consider the
thread which contains repeated claims about human ethics and the evilness
non-free software.
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove anything to them.
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback
position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
responsible for this.
(Or spread FUD)
This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in
reference to my posts. In no case do you seem to justify your use of
the term (What's the fear? What's the uncertainty? What's the doubt?)
Uhh, it's not obvious?
jargon /fuhd/ An acronym invented by {Gene Amdahl}
after he left {IBM} to found his own company: FUD is the
fear, uncertainty, and doubt that {IBM} sales people instill
in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
[Amdahl] products. The idea, of course, was to persuade them
to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors'
equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally
accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to
people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the
future of competitors' equipment or software.
The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is that a given position leads to
an undesireable result. It is distinct from a real argument in that no
justification or accurate description of the result is ever given,
merely a suggestion that there will be one, and it will be bad. It is
characterised by the way that it is impossible for anybody to respond
(other than simply pointing out that it is FUD) because not enough
details are given.
See SCO for a classic example of FUD in practice.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware afaik. sharefont was removed because it didn't have proper licenses, not because it had shareware stuff in it. You may be right. I remember the discussions and the removal, but I've not gone back to research everyone's view on this. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? If someone presents a package with a license that allows us to distribute it, but doesn't meet any of the DFSG, currently, we'll accept it. If the social contract is changed as you propose, we'll reject it. That's a substantive policy change: it'll change what software can actually sit on the ftp site. And if you really think it's never going to happen anyway, there's no point making that change to the social contract. There's no practical point certainly, but there's no philosophical point either: if even the worst non-free licenses we can imagine comply with some part of the DFSG, then we're not taking any particularly worthy stand by increasing our exclusivity. Hmm... ok. Though I disagree on the philosophical issue -- I think there's value in reducing ambiguity even if doing so does not result in taking a stand. Anyways, I'll accept that changing what software can actually sit on the ftp site is a policy change. I'm not convinced that this change is very substantial, but if you think it is I see basis for disputing your point. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. And the cow jumped over the moon. That was a complete non sequitur, afaics. MJ Ray's example wasn't any more theoretical than someone asking what Debian's take on any license that hasn't already made it into the archive is. Eh? He's talking about a theoretical outcome involving a theoretical license on theoretical software. More generally, the answer to what's Debian's take is a theoretical answer -- what we actually do when we get the package might be different from what someone claims we'd do. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. Sorry. And that's just proving MJ Ray's point that you're refusing to discuss this properly. What's this that I'm not discussing properly? I thought I was talking about what we've been doing. You [and he] are talking about what we might do. How is pointing out that one is not the other not discussing it properly? Or is there some other point involved here that I'm missing? And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? The same as for all non-free software we distribute: someone finds it useful, and we're able to do so at little to no cost to ourselves. That seems highly unlikely, but like I said above: if you consider this a substantial issue I don't have a basis to object. But that's not why we're distributing that software -- that's a blemish. We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms for at least some of our users. I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client enhances anyone's freedom in any way. I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...). Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Nor is there any question that the debian free software guidelines represents the social contract's definition of free. There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses, ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone making serious alternative suggestions. So no, I don't really think this is a matter of much debate. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove anything to them.
Foggy thinking is intrinsic to being human. That doesn't make
discussion futile.
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback
position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
responsible for this.
I don't understand you here.
(Or spread FUD)
This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in
reference to my posts. In no case do you seem to justify your use of
the term (What's the fear? What's the uncertainty? What's the doubt?)
Uhh, it's not obvious?
jargon /fuhd/ An acronym invented by {Gene Amdahl}
after he left {IBM} to found his own company: FUD is the
fear, uncertainty, and doubt that {IBM} sales people instill
in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
[Amdahl] products. The idea, of course, was to persuade them
to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors'
equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally
accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to
people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the
future of competitors' equipment or software.
The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is that a given position leads to
an undesireable result. It is distinct from a real argument in that no
justification or accurate description of the result is ever given,
merely a suggestion that there will be one, and it will be bad. It is
characterised by the way that it is impossible for anybody to respond
(other than simply pointing out that it is FUD) because not enough
details are given.
See SCO for a classic example of FUD in practice.
So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph
about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough
specifics to be refutable if it were false?
I don't understand how you could possibly think that.
--
Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. That's an extremely foggy distinction. Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all. There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction - rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow responsible for this. I don't understand you here. Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those following along) So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. It's just another assertion of a vague problem without any detail. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all. There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction - rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow responsible for this. I don't understand you here. Since you seem to be acting in bad faith, I'll just assume that means that you can't think of a response. (It's the same as above, for those following along) Ok, but the above distinction is an example of bad faith on your part. You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to a assertion about GFDL documentation does not need to be removed. Since my claim was that GFDL documentation would need to be removed if your resolution passed there's no need for me to prove the opposite. So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. It's just another assertion of a vague problem without any detail. Not if it is a reference to my assertion about dropping GFDL licensed documentation from main. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs, since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with the non-DFSG-free documentation in main. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:16:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms for at least some of our users. I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client enhances anyone's freedom in any way. I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...). Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't come from any of our guidelines. Well, afaik non-free packages are ones that *are useful for some of our users* that we are *free to distribute*. The only freedom we require is that one: that we can stick it on our mirror network and not get sued. You could say that any piece of software enhances the freedom of the user -- that Microsoft Office lets the user use, well, Microsoft Office, and that's a choice they wouldn't have had beforehand. I can't see any other way in which any given piece of non-free software offers some freedoms for at least some of our users though. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions, to word games). You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise] So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. More nonsensical handwaving. This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is removed. Handwaving is not rationale. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That because we're violating the social contract. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. The DFSG itself uses the term programs in some places and not in others. I can see some sense in saying that points where it specifically uses the term program don't apply to documentation if that documentation isn't supplied in the form of a program. But where the DFSG uses the term works I don't see any sense in claiming that it's talking only about programs and not about documentation. Which is the case for guideline #3. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Then I presume you'll also be advocating throwing out all GPL programs, since the text of the GPL is either software, in which case it must be freely licensed which it isn't, or it's not software in which case it can't go in main, either; and without the license text, we can't distribute any of the programs licensed under the GPL. I don't see the sense in that -- the social contract explicitly states that the DFSG defines what it means by free software, and the DFSG already addresses this issue differently from what you presume I'll be advocating. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. I have no idea what you're talking about here. There's no requirement in the DFSG that that be possible, and that's not the major problem with the non-DFSG-free documentation in main. That was intended to be a reference to a GFDL secondary section as a non-modifiable work. I've not done any kind of exhaustive look at this issue, but if you want to talk about other issues that's fine by me. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to I didn't write that, Andrew did. Argh, sorry about that. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:37:24AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: That's an extremely foggy distinction. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 07:00:13AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Not at all. You have not been demonstrating that GFDL documentation does not need to be removed as a result of removing non-free. Which isn't what you said. You said you haven't been trying to prove anything to them. You have been asserting that GFDL documentation needs to be removed as a result of removing non-free. These two things are in direct conflict. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:38:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: ... and this is a different distinction from the one I said was foggy. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:45:27AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Now you're just changing the subject (from your claim that you were trying to give examples of how some people have inconsistent opinions, to word games). I never claimed I was trying to give examples OF how some people have inconsistent opinions. I claimed that giving examples TO people who have inconsistent opinions was the only way I knew of for dealing with that situation. You jumped from a claim about me not trying to prove anything to False. [I'm ignoring the rest, as it was grounded on a false premise] You might also have made other claims, but that claim is clearly illustrated in the first quoted paragraph at the top of this message. So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough specifics to be refutable if it were false? I don't understand how you could possibly think that. Because it provides no rationale. Duh. I provided a rationale -- I claimed that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines. More nonsensical handwaving. This is clearly unaffected by whether or not non-free is removed. Handwaving is not rationale. I agree that GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all the debian free software guidelines is independent of whether or not non-free is removed. However, it's pretty blatent that if non-free is not removed then doesn't satisfy DFSG could go in non-free, and if is removed then doesn't satisfy DFSG should also be removed. Unless... Are you suggesting that we will continue to distribute non-DFSG works after your proposal, and that the only change is that we won't distribute them in non-free (and the package maintainers will put some other tag on them, besides non-free)? Yeah, if you consider that to be the obvious outcome, then I can see how you'd consider my statements to be nonsense. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well.
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 23, 2004, at 15:09, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:35:08AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: Last I checked, rar is still shareware and is still in non-free. Alongside it sit several shareware fonts as well. I stand corrected. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL?
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Jan 24, 2004, at 01:25, Raul Miller wrote: It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 09:48:25AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: ... please, please tell me this isn't the only problem you see with the GFDL? No, just the one most indicative that we might need to fix the DFSG. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:34:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 01:25:48AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. *shrug* You can claim that if you really like. Personally, I don't think interpreting software to mean programs, but not documentation is particularly outrageous; and considering we've been distributing non-DFSG-free documentation in main since the social contract has been written, I'm afraid I don't think it's reasonable to claim that documentation is software too is anything but a reinterpretation. A case can probably be made (if one has the patience to make it) that we have also been distributing non-free software in main since the beginning, by virtue of various bugs/oversights (including some as-yet undiscovered). So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of this. Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG, and various other people saying it was never really discussed. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. It's my observation that a number of people have inconsistent outlooks on various aspects of the non-free issue. For example, consider the thread which contains repeated claims about human ethics and the evilness non-free software. Consider that the person perpetrating that thread doesn't have a vote here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is foolish. De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Don Armstrong -- Quite the contrary; they *love* collateral damage. If they can make you miserable enough, maybe you'll stop using email entirely. Once enough people do that, then there'll be no legitimate reason left for anyone to run an SMTP server, and the spam problem will be solved. Craig Dickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect one. (Please switch off your attribution mangler.) Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. Thank you! Why? Please will you reintroduce the phrase The software in these directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system? Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove non-free GR? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a choice? On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:27PM +, MJ Ray wrote: It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect one. Exactly. (Please switch off your attribution mangler.) I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. Thank you! Why? Because Anthony Towns showed me some examples where it wouldn't make sense. Please will you reintroduce the phrase The software in these directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system? I'm considering that. However, I feel that if I do so I should also include a definition of what the Debian system means. Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove non-free GR? I'm dropping changes to sections 2-4. However, section 1 explicitly mentions non-free, and some of the ambiguity in the social contract about non-free is present there. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:48:55AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
So I don't think that the mere presence of non-DFSG-free
documentation in main demonstrates that this is a reinterpretation; it
would be much more compelling evidence if there were records showing
that the licenses of this documentation had been examined, their DFSG
incompatibilities recognized, and the packages kept in main in spite of
this.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/debian-devel-199811/msg02368.html
] Certain kinds of documentation or other non-software works may have
] further restrictions.
...
] (b) A document which states an opinion, as an opinion, need not be
] modifiable.
Ian's proposal was rejected as being too formal, but was widely seen and
discussed. At the time though, this particular point was accepted without
argument, afaics and afaicr.
Instead, what we have is the original author of the DFSG stating
he intended documentation to be covered by the DFSG,
I find that a bit hard to believe, even with Bruce's assertion. All the
GNU docs have always been non-DFSG-free [0], eg, and imagining that everyone
in Debian just happened not to notice seems quite a stretch to me.
and various other people saying it was never really discussed.
Not everything that's obvious gets discussed, even on Debian lists.
Cheers,
aj
[0] gcc's manual as of v2.8.1, March 1998, says:
Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided
also that the sections entitled ``GNU General Public License,''
``Funding for Free Software,'' and ``Protect Your Freedom---Fight
`Look And Feel'@w{}'' are included exactly as in the original, and
provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under
the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
--
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 03:14:18PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is foolish. De facto, we don't. The debate is (primarily) whether we require it de iure. I understood, apparently incorrectly, that you were discussing the de iure requirements of the SC related to the DFSG, as what's actually happening (right or wrong) is quite clear to see. Uh, that was addressed in subsequent paragraphs. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy guideline #3. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Guideline #3 never mentions programs. Personally, I think that's harmful: independent issues should be voted on separately; and afaics the editorial changes and the substantive changes are independent. What defines independence? The decision you make on one doesn't affect the decision you make on the other. Taken literally, that means what's written in the proposal is by definition not independent. Taken pedantically, perhaps. The independent questions are what does the social contract need to say about non-free, and how should the social contract be written. How it's written and what it needs to say have significant overlap. You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Yeah, it's true that the intersection of A and B has nothing in common with B except for what's in A. At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes. Even on that axis, there's more involved than that. Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound? The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. That sentence no verb. Right. That was the expanded it. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Maybe encourage people to be a bit more productive, but my basic plan is to fix problems based on existing practice. Providing *more* text makes it *easier* to lost the important details. If you're really making more substantive changes than the one above, this has already happened. The problem which I think needs to be addressed is that people can mis-interpret the social contract to think that it's saying we shouldn't distribute non-free. It's easy to point anyone who thinks that to point five of the social contract. And you get responses like Andrew's proposal to drop point five of the social contract. I don't think that changing the wording of the social contract will cause anyone who thinks we shouldn't distribute non-free to change their mind. I do. Though I agree that my current proposal still doesn't address all the relevant points. A lot of your changes are trying to clarify the description of our goals. Yes, exactly. Andrew's proposal is to *change* our goals. Yes. Those are different issues. They're not independent issues. Yes, they are. They're as independent as saying Let's change our goals. and Let's describe our goals in French insteasd of English. Certainly you can't do the latter if you don't know what our goals are; but that does not make the underlying issues dependant. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. Whether or not we want to clarify or clean up the social contract is an issue that's entirely separate to whether or not we want to drop non-free. I think that the reason people want to drop non-free is at least in part because of the way the social contract expresses our goals. Again, I think you're wrong. Can you point to anyone who has argued for dropping non-free, but will say Let's keep non-free if the social contract is reworded? Can you point to anyone who'd vote: No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. [ 1 ] Keep non-free, make minor edits to social contract to clean up apparent contradiction, with no substantive changes? [ 2 ] Drop non-free, drop non-free from social contract [ 3 ] Keep non-free, keep social contract as is if given the choice to do other editorial changes later? It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Furthermore, until I can present edits which people can recognize as being straightforward restatements of the social contract and existing practice, people who believe the social contract says something else are going to at best be highly dubious that the equivalency
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Guideline #3 never mentions programs. Yet, nevertheless the above is the case. You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Well, no. The first question is Should the social contract require/forbid/allow non-free? The second question is How do we describe our requirements about non-free to best communicate our intentions? We can answer the second question right now. If we decide to change our requirements, we may have to ask it again. But they're fundamentally different questions. At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes. Even on that axis, there's more involved than that. Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound? The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. That sentence no verb. Right. That was the expanded it. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Uh. The axis was substantive changes. You claimed there were more than what I listed, and give an example that doesn't change anything that we do? It's easy to point anyone who thinks that to point five of the social contract. And you get responses like Andrew's proposal to drop point five of the social contract. Sure. Those are the people who want Debian not to distribute non-free. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. That would be true if it were the case. It's not, though. No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. Well, no. They point at Debian will be 100% free, and say that that's a superior goal to the one we're actually aiming for. It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Well, you're basing your entire resolution on an assumption about other people's motives, without any support for that assumption at all. If your resolution stands alone -- it's something that you want to see done in and of itself -- that's fine; if it's a compromise that's intended to demonstrate to some of the people who support an approach you don't like that there's a better way, it's probably a waste of time. Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing goals only amendments. As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. And how do you propose that happen? Huh? I'm talking, you're talking, other people are talking. How else would it happen? Andrew's current proposal is *exactly* what a goals only proposal should look like. It states what he wants to happen, and the minimum number of changes to other things that need to be approved for it to happen in a consistent manner. And he's provided no rationale for his changes. If that's exactly what you're advocating, I think I'm going to have to confess that I really don't know what you're advocating. I have no idea what you think I'm talking about. What I'm advocating is one single ballot to decide the issue of What do we do about non-free?. If we're going to drop it, we should do that: drop it from the social contract, drop it from the archive, and drop everything else that needs to go with it. If we're going to keep it, then we should decide that, and nothing else. If we want to do other things -- like tidy up the social contract -- we can do that in other ballots as necessary. (Well, perfect but for the usual provisos about not dealing with contrib at all) That, and he's proposing specific actions. If specific actions are goals, I don't see why different specific actions (which happen to include the exact wording of the social contract) are not goals. No, the question is Is Debian's goal to distribute all the software we can, or to be 100% pure free software in everything we do? The answer to that question has implications we have to deal with: changing the social contract,
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for your statement. I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the rationale for your most recent amendment. To remind you: The rationale for this proposal is: clean up the social contract, make it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have been interpreting it. This includes continuing our existing support for non-free software. Back to this thread: Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking you a question, which you did not answer. You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable. I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief. Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and introducing more tension within the social contract. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. 5. transition plan for non-free packages. A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy. That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal. This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? By the way : License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't include it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So such a package is not distributable by debian. Well, there may be border case (for example some license speaking only of CD distribution). -- Rémi Vanicat -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Guideline #3 never mentions programs. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:39:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Yet, nevertheless the above is the case. Why? How? You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Well, no. The first question is Should the social contract require/forbid/allow non-free? The second question is How do we describe our requirements about non-free to best communicate our intentions? We can answer the second question right now. If we decide to change our requirements, we may have to ask it again. But they're fundamentally different questions. Andrew's introduced proposal answers both questions. Why do you want mine to only address one of those two? [If I understand you correctly, it's because Andrew's is about changing what we do, while mine is about helping people understand what we do. But that doesn't seem to warrant the asymmetry you are proposing.] [it is] The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Uh. The axis was substantive changes. You claimed there were more than what I listed, and give an example that doesn't change anything that we do? substantive changes in what? Now you seem to be claiming that what has to change substantially is what the project does, rather than how we describe what we do. I don't know why you consider this a valid claim. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. That would be true if it were the case. It's not, though. That's your hypothetical example, modified with my analogy to how I see the problem. In my opinion it's not the case because it's a hypothetical example. I understand that you think the problem I see is a non-problem. That might be cause for you to vote against me, but in itself is insufficient to convince me to change my proposal. [That said, I *am* changing my proposal, I just don't know if my changes will satisfy you.] No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. Well, no. They point at Debian will be 100% free, and say that that's a superior goal to the one we're actually aiming for. Well, no. That's not what it says in the social contract, so there's plenty of counter-examples where people claim something different. It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Well, you're basing your entire resolution on an assumption about other people's motives, without any support for that assumption at all. If your resolution stands alone -- it's something that you want to see done in and of itself -- that's fine; if it's a compromise that's intended to demonstrate to some of the people who support an approach you don't like that there's a better way, it's probably a waste of time. Clearly, it's based on my understanding of other people's motives. Clearly, also, I can't adapt it to every other person's motives -- every person has different motives. What I can do, and have been trying to do, is incorporate what I understand as the basis for each person's motives. If my current understanding of the basis of yours is correct, I think I would drop my changes to sections 2..4, and my capitalization changes. I think should [for example] change the phrase Debian GNU/Linux Distribution to one which more generically describes the distribution because that's what we're promising to keep 100% free software, and if we don't describe that promise properly that confuses people. However, given that I couldn't think of anyway to phrase the above paragraph without talking about the promise in the social contract, I think I should change my proposal back to using the We promise phrasing. Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing goals only amendments. As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. And how do you propose that happen? Huh? I'm talking, you're talking, other people are talking. How else would it happen?
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for your statement. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the rationale for your most recent amendment. Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes. Another way of looking at this issue is that editorial changes to policy are policy changes, and policy changes which do not entirely replace policy are editorial changes. It's not deceitful to represent something for what it is. However, if you are arguing that I should not change capitalization of section titles and should leave sections 2, 3, and 4 alone, I should probably point out that Anthony Towns has done a fair job of convincing me that those changes are irrelevant to the current ballot and that I should drop them for that reasons. Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking you a question, which you did not answer. You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable. I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief. Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license which: [a] Doesn't allow free distribution [b] Doesn't let us provide source code [c] Doesn't let us change it [d] Discriminates against some people [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license [g] Is specific to Debian [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute such software. Are you claiming Raul has pointed out that this is a stupid idea is sufficient reason for us to distribute such software? It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. I'm the one who claims that we don't distribute such software. You're the one asking ME to prove something that never happens. You're the one who claims that our existing practice is to distribute such software. All you have to do is provide an example of that practice. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? Now you're confusing existing practice with existing policy. I do not claim that I'm documenting existing policy. 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and introducing more tension within the social contract. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. I intend to preserve this distinction. I do understand that my current proposal still needs a bit of work to properly express that distinction. I also intend to preserve the other aspects of both what the social contract says and how we've been acting on it. 5. transition plan for non-free packages. A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy. That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal. This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale. Ok. My next proposal
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes. Let us be clear and agree on this: your amendment would change debian's practices. It is not just a wording change to deliver the same result. To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license which: [a] Doesn't allow free distribution [b] Doesn't let us provide source code [c] Doesn't let us change it [d] Discriminates against some people [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license [g] Is specific to Debian [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute such software. Please tell me why debian could not distribute software in non-free which has a licence that says: Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence The release of this software offered to the debian project may be copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian project or as part of a CD prepared by a debian developer. Any distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to the copyright holder. The software may not be modified and must not be used for tasks involving nuclear reactions. The software is covered by patent EP 394160 so it may only be used by holders of a suitable patent licence until 2010. This software may not be distributed on a removable magnetic disk containing any other copyrighted material. [ENDS] I think this licence prevents free distribution, doesn't provide source code, prevents modification, discriminates against non-DDs and commerce, requires an additional licence, is specific to debian and contaminates other software. I may need to refine it, but I think the spirit is right. A reason to include such software is not an argument I can make. I do not believe there is a compelling reason to have any of non-free in debian's archive any more, while others do. I think you may be one who does. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Whether we currently have such software is not the whole issue. You claimed that your proposal does not contain policy changes, although you no longer claim that. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. That may be an oversight. If the claim is not clear, we should repair it, not remove it as your proposal does. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey area, so I present: [a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...] This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your request borders on the absurdly unreasonable. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible. Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. If you don't honestly believe that your examples are representative of existing practice, then I am not comfortable talking with you. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about auxiliary distributions may be an oversight. If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have over-edited it. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an example of it. On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. Poor wording. I should have written current practice, as in the earlier claim. Highlighting that error is pedantry IMO. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible. Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die. Only in scale. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are commercial. Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. I think we already have this, but it might not always be as obvious as my example. If I distributed mpg123 as part of a radio station music player system, I would have to obtain a new copyright licence. If I just used it to make such a system for my own commercial use, I would have to do that. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about auxiliary distributions may be an oversight. If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. It really is not a difficult concept: if you are only trying to clarify this, if the social contract statement about non-free not being part of the distribution is incomplete, it should be completed and not removed. To remove it means that you reduce that separation, IMO. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. The reconciliation of this viewpoint with Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software is quite strained; and many actually do see it as a requirement that documentation itself satisfy the guidelines of the DFSG. [Additionally, no one who claims that documentation doesn't need to satisfy the DFSG has come forward with a rubric to distinguish documentation from software.] As far as licenses go, their status as legal documents may affect their copyrightability, but moreover, their modifiability. As such, I don't think anyone is calling to strictly apply the DFSG to them. Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all. I gather you're discussing the non-free proposal, as the SC modification does clear up the former half of the above debate. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
[a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have over-edited it. All general purpose computers I know of use magnetic media, the license appears to not allow distribution onto such media. On top of that it's patent restricted, which limits use. On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. This reminds me of a rotten apple argument -- apples with minor blemishes can be useful to make pie. But, just because you can make an apple pie with apples which have any sort of blemish doesn't mean that an apple which combines all those blemishes is worth anything. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an example of it. Are you saying your example was not absurd? On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd. That works for definitions of current practice which involve only hypothetical practices. You've yet to provide a concrete example where current practice would be changed. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. Poor wording. I should have written current practice, as in the earlier claim. Highlighting that error is pedantry IMO. You can call that pedantry -- but as I see it you're not talking about current practice. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. Sorry. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are commercial. And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. I think we already have this, but it might not always be as obvious as my example. If I distributed mpg123 as part of a radio station music player system, I would have to obtain a new copyright licence. If I just used it to make such a system for my own commercial use, I would have to do that. But
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Anthony Towns (eventually, after a few false leads) managed to find some shareware in non-free a few weeks back. Is it still there? Even if it is, there are a number of other examples where we stopped distributing shareware because it was shareware. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; Further discussion is precisely this scenario. No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. In particular, that option is required to allow people to vote: [ 1 ] Keep non-free [ 2 ] Drop non-free [ 3 ] Further discussion should they prefer to keep non-free, but believe that dropping it is an acceptable outcome if that's what most of Debian prefers. That's how I expect to vote. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a quarter of Debian who would rather keep non-free than drop it (considering that's around the proportion who maintain non-free packages), so without the separate option, this proposal seems impossible to pass. Note that: 100 votes Further discussion Drop non-free 290 votes Drop non-free Further Discussion will cause Further discussion to win; while: 50 votes Keep non-free Further discussion Drop non-free 50 votes Keep non-free Drop non-free Further discussion 290 votes Drop non-free Keep non-free Further discussion will cause Drop non-free to win. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 12:40:18AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to
drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and
who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts.
It's my observation that a number of people have inconsistent outlooks
on various aspects of the non-free issue. For example, consider the
thread which contains repeated claims about human ethics and the evilness
non-free software.
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove anything to them.
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback
position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
responsible for this.
(Or spread FUD)
This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in
reference to my posts. In no case do you seem to justify your use of
the term (What's the fear? What's the uncertainty? What's the doubt?)
Uhh, it's not obvious?
jargon /fuhd/ An acronym invented by {Gene Amdahl}
after he left {IBM} to found his own company: FUD is the
fear, uncertainty, and doubt that {IBM} sales people instill
in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
[Amdahl] products. The idea, of course, was to persuade them
to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors'
equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally
accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to
people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the
future of competitors' equipment or software.
The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is that a given position leads to
an undesireable result. It is distinct from a real argument in that no
justification or accurate description of the result is ever given,
merely a suggestion that there will be one, and it will be bad. It is
characterised by the way that it is impossible for anybody to respond
(other than simply pointing out that it is FUD) because not enough
details are given.
See SCO for a classic example of FUD in practice.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:24:58PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware afaik. sharefont was removed because it didn't have proper licenses, not because it had shareware stuff in it. You may be right. I remember the discussions and the removal, but I've not gone back to research everyone's view on this. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? If someone presents a package with a license that allows us to distribute it, but doesn't meet any of the DFSG, currently, we'll accept it. If the social contract is changed as you propose, we'll reject it. That's a substantive policy change: it'll change what software can actually sit on the ftp site. And if you really think it's never going to happen anyway, there's no point making that change to the social contract. There's no practical point certainly, but there's no philosophical point either: if even the worst non-free licenses we can imagine comply with some part of the DFSG, then we're not taking any particularly worthy stand by increasing our exclusivity. Hmm... ok. Though I disagree on the philosophical issue -- I think there's value in reducing ambiguity even if doing so does not result in taking a stand. Anyways, I'll accept that changing what software can actually sit on the ftp site is a policy change. I'm not convinced that this change is very substantial, but if you think it is I see basis for disputing your point. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. And the cow jumped over the moon. That was a complete non sequitur, afaics. MJ Ray's example wasn't any more theoretical than someone asking what Debian's take on any license that hasn't already made it into the archive is. Eh? He's talking about a theoretical outcome involving a theoretical license on theoretical software. More generally, the answer to what's Debian's take is a theoretical answer -- what we actually do when we get the package might be different from what someone claims we'd do. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. Sorry. And that's just proving MJ Ray's point that you're refusing to discuss this properly. What's this that I'm not discussing properly? I thought I was talking about what we've been doing. You [and he] are talking about what we might do. How is pointing out that one is not the other not discussing it properly? Or is there some other point involved here that I'm missing? And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? The same as for all non-free software we distribute: someone finds it useful, and we're able to do so at little to no cost to ourselves. That seems highly unlikely, but like I said above: if you consider this a substantial issue I don't have a basis to object. But that's not why we're distributing that software -- that's a blemish. We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms for at least some of our users. I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client enhances anyone's freedom in any way. I guess that's because you don't remember any of the debates surrounding proposed legislation mandating escrowed encryption (skipjack, ...). Though I'll grant that the principle benefit here doesn't
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: All the software in main. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 02:37:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. That because we're violating the social contract. I don't think there's any question that main is the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution which we promise to keep entirely free software. Nor is there any question that the debian free software guidelines represents the social contract's definition of free. There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses, ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone making serious alternative suggestions. So no, I don't really think this is a matter of much debate. It's probably the case that what needs to be fixed here is the DFSG -- requiring that it be possible to remove credit for the author doesn't seem to have any justification on Debian's part. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves
examples.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:06:00AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
If your point is that a significant portion of the enfranchised
developers are nuts, then I have to point out the futility of trying
to prove anything to them.
Foggy thinking is intrinsic to being human. That doesn't make
discussion futile.
But you haven't been trying to prove anything to them, you've been
using this as an argument for why non-free shouldn't be dropped.
That's an extremely foggy distinction.
Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no fallback
position. In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
There is no attempt here to point out the inherent contradiction -
rather, you're trying to suggest that dropping non-free is somehow
responsible for this.
I don't understand you here.
(Or spread FUD)
This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in
reference to my posts. In no case do you seem to justify your use of
the term (What's the fear? What's the uncertainty? What's the doubt?)
Uhh, it's not obvious?
jargon /fuhd/ An acronym invented by {Gene Amdahl}
after he left {IBM} to found his own company: FUD is the
fear, uncertainty, and doubt that {IBM} sales people instill
in the minds of potential customers who might be considering
[Amdahl] products. The idea, of course, was to persuade them
to go with safe IBM gear rather than with competitors'
equipment. This implicit coercion was traditionally
accomplished by promising that Good Things would happen to
people who stuck with IBM, but Dark Shadows loomed over the
future of competitors' equipment or software.
The fear, uncertainty, and doubt is that a given position leads to
an undesireable result. It is distinct from a real argument in that no
justification or accurate description of the result is ever given,
merely a suggestion that there will be one, and it will be bad. It is
characterised by the way that it is impossible for anybody to respond
(other than simply pointing out that it is FUD) because not enough
details are given.
See SCO for a classic example of FUD in practice.
So, in essence, you seem to be claiming that the above quoted paragraph
about GFDL documentation getting dropped from main doesn't provide enough
specifics to be refutable if it were false?
I don't understand how you could possibly think that.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:21:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: It's very simple: GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all requirements of the DFSG. That's nice. Why do you think that means it would get dropped from main, merely because the non-free section will disappear? Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy guideline #3. It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all. Personally, I think that's harmful: independent issues should be voted on separately; and afaics the editorial changes and the substantive changes are independent. What defines independence? The decision you make on one doesn't affect the decision you make on the other. Taken literally, that means what's written in the proposal is by definition not independent. Taken pedantically, perhaps. The independent questions are what does the social contract need to say about non-free, and how should the social contract be written. You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes. Even on that axis, there's more involved than that. Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound? The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. That sentence no verb. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? At the moment, it's very easy to lose the substantive changes you're proposing amidst the copious editorial changes you're also proposing. That's bad -- we don't want to make substantive changes by accident. I'm quite happy to provide any needed documentation on my proposed changes. Providing *more* text makes it *easier* to lost the important details. If you're really making more substantive changes than the one above, this has already happened. The problem which I think needs to be addressed is that people can mis-interpret the social contract to think that it's saying we shouldn't distribute non-free. It's easy to point anyone who thinks that to point five of the social contract. I don't think that changing the wording of the social contract will cause anyone who thinks we shouldn't distribute non-free to change their mind. A lot of your changes are trying to clarify the description of our goals. Yes, exactly. Andrew's proposal is to *change* our goals. Yes. Those are different issues. They're not independent issues. Yes, they are. They're as independent as saying Let's change our goals. and Let's describe our goals in French insteasd of English. Certainly you can't do the latter if you don't know what our goals are; but that does not make the underlying issues dependant. Whether or not we want to clarify or clean up the social contract is an issue that's entirely separate to whether or not we want to drop non-free. I think that the reason people want to drop non-free is at least in part because of the way the social contract expresses our goals. Again, I think you're wrong. Can you point to anyone who has argued for dropping non-free, but will say Let's keep non-free if the social contract is reworded? Can you point to anyone who'd vote: [ 1 ] Keep non-free, make minor edits to social contract to clean up apparent contradiction, with no substantive changes? [ 2 ] Drop non-free, drop non-free from social contract [ 3 ] Keep non-free, keep social contract as is if given the choice to do other editorial changes later? Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing goals only amendments. As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. If you're truly only describing goals, not changes to any foundation documents, your proposals would be free of a significant hurdle which both my proposal and Andrew's proposal must face (the 3:1 supermajority requirement). Note also that I'm not claiming that you're wrong for believing that a Goals Only proposal is a good thing. If you have a clear vision of what that proposal should be, I highly recommend you write it up. I might even vote for it. Andrew's current
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy guideline #3. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Guideline #3 never mentions programs. Personally, I think that's harmful: independent issues should be voted on separately; and afaics the editorial changes and the substantive changes are independent. What defines independence? The decision you make on one doesn't affect the decision you make on the other. Taken literally, that means what's written in the proposal is by definition not independent. Taken pedantically, perhaps. The independent questions are what does the social contract need to say about non-free, and how should the social contract be written. How it's written and what it needs to say have significant overlap. You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Yeah, it's true that the intersection of A and B has nothing in common with B except for what's in A. At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes. Even on that axis, there's more involved than that. Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound? The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. That sentence no verb. Right. That was the expanded it. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Maybe encourage people to be a bit more productive, but my basic plan is to fix problems based on existing practice. Providing *more* text makes it *easier* to lost the important details. If you're really making more substantive changes than the one above, this has already happened. The problem which I think needs to be addressed is that people can mis-interpret the social contract to think that it's saying we shouldn't distribute non-free. It's easy to point anyone who thinks that to point five of the social contract. And you get responses like Andrew's proposal to drop point five of the social contract. I don't think that changing the wording of the social contract will cause anyone who thinks we shouldn't distribute non-free to change their mind. I do. Though I agree that my current proposal still doesn't address all the relevant points. A lot of your changes are trying to clarify the description of our goals. Yes, exactly. Andrew's proposal is to *change* our goals. Yes. Those are different issues. They're not independent issues. Yes, they are. They're as independent as saying Let's change our goals. and Let's describe our goals in French insteasd of English. Certainly you can't do the latter if you don't know what our goals are; but that does not make the underlying issues dependant. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. Whether or not we want to clarify or clean up the social contract is an issue that's entirely separate to whether or not we want to drop non-free. I think that the reason people want to drop non-free is at least in part because of the way the social contract expresses our goals. Again, I think you're wrong. Can you point to anyone who has argued for dropping non-free, but will say Let's keep non-free if the social contract is reworded? Can you point to anyone who'd vote: No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. [ 1 ] Keep non-free, make minor edits to social contract to clean up apparent contradiction, with no substantive changes? [ 2 ] Drop non-free, drop non-free from social contract [ 3 ] Keep non-free, keep social contract as is if given the choice to do other editorial changes later? It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Furthermore, until I can present edits which people can recognize as being straightforward restatements of the social contract and existing practice, people who believe the social contract says something else are going to at best be highly dubious that the equivalency
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Guideline #3 never mentions programs. Yet, nevertheless the above is the case. You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Well, no. The first question is Should the social contract require/forbid/allow non-free? The second question is How do we describe our requirements about non-free to best communicate our intentions? We can answer the second question right now. If we decide to change our requirements, we may have to ask it again. But they're fundamentally different questions. At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes. Even on that axis, there's more involved than that. Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound? The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. That sentence no verb. Right. That was the expanded it. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Uh. The axis was substantive changes. You claimed there were more than what I listed, and give an example that doesn't change anything that we do? It's easy to point anyone who thinks that to point five of the social contract. And you get responses like Andrew's proposal to drop point five of the social contract. Sure. Those are the people who want Debian not to distribute non-free. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. That would be true if it were the case. It's not, though. No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. Well, no. They point at Debian will be 100% free, and say that that's a superior goal to the one we're actually aiming for. It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Well, you're basing your entire resolution on an assumption about other people's motives, without any support for that assumption at all. If your resolution stands alone -- it's something that you want to see done in and of itself -- that's fine; if it's a compromise that's intended to demonstrate to some of the people who support an approach you don't like that there's a better way, it's probably a waste of time. Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing goals only amendments. As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. And how do you propose that happen? Huh? I'm talking, you're talking, other people are talking. How else would it happen? Andrew's current proposal is *exactly* what a goals only proposal should look like. It states what he wants to happen, and the minimum number of changes to other things that need to be approved for it to happen in a consistent manner. And he's provided no rationale for his changes. If that's exactly what you're advocating, I think I'm going to have to confess that I really don't know what you're advocating. I have no idea what you think I'm talking about. What I'm advocating is one single ballot to decide the issue of What do we do about non-free?. If we're going to drop it, we should do that: drop it from the social contract, drop it from the archive, and drop everything else that needs to go with it. If we're going to keep it, then we should decide that, and nothing else. If we want to do other things -- like tidy up the social contract -- we can do that in other ballots as necessary. (Well, perfect but for the usual provisos about not dealing with contrib at all) That, and he's proposing specific actions. If specific actions are goals, I don't see why different specific actions (which happen to include the exact wording of the social contract) are not goals. No, the question is Is Debian's goal to distribute all the software we can, or to be 100% pure free software in everything we do? The answer to that question has implications we have to deal with: changing the social contract,
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for your statement. I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the rationale for your most recent amendment. To remind you: The rationale for this proposal is: clean up the social contract, make it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have been interpreting it. This includes continuing our existing support for non-free software. Back to this thread: Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking you a question, which you did not answer. You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable. I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief. Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and introducing more tension within the social contract. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. 5. transition plan for non-free packages. A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy. That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal. This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? By the way : License Must Not Contaminate Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't include it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So such a package is not distributable by debian. Well, there may be border case (for example some license speaking only of CD distribution). -- Rémi Vanicat
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 11:52:28 + Remi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If a license contaminate other software, we very probably can't include it into non-free, as other non-free package won't follow this rule. So such a package is not distributable by debian. That probably doesn't follow. There may be limits to the contamination (such as media type) which prevent it hurting debian's non-free archives. For example, combining classes A-C and E of the 4F License of http://u-os.org/4f/ would seem to produce a licence like that. (I recommend against using 4F, even though it doesn't have this particular problem.) -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Guideline #3 never mentions programs. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:39:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Yet, nevertheless the above is the case. Why? How? You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the answer to the first, except one: how should the social contract address the issue of non-free. Well, in the sense that your except one is your first question. Well, no. The first question is Should the social contract require/forbid/allow non-free? The second question is How do we describe our requirements about non-free to best communicate our intentions? We can answer the second question right now. If we decide to change our requirements, we may have to ask it again. But they're fundamentally different questions. Andrew's introduced proposal answers both questions. Why do you want mine to only address one of those two? [If I understand you correctly, it's because Andrew's is about changing what we do, while mine is about helping people understand what we do. But that doesn't seem to warrant the asymmetry you are proposing.] [it is] The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our relationship with non-free software. What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll actually change how we behave? Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. Uh. The axis was substantive changes. You claimed there were more than what I listed, and give an example that doesn't change anything that we do? substantive changes in what? Now you seem to be claiming that what has to change substantially is what the project does, rather than how we describe what we do. I don't know why you consider this a valid claim. Even in your example, if the motive for Let's change our goals is because they're not described in French, they're still not independent. That would be true if it were the case. It's not, though. That's your hypothetical example, modified with my analogy to how I see the problem. In my opinion it's not the case because it's a hypothetical example. I understand that you think the problem I see is a non-problem. That might be cause for you to vote against me, but in itself is insufficient to convince me to change my proposal. [That said, I *am* changing my proposal, I just don't know if my changes will satisfy you.] No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. Well, no. They point at Debian will be 100% free, and say that that's a superior goal to the one we're actually aiming for. Well, no. That's not what it says in the social contract, so there's plenty of counter-examples where people claim something different. It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. Well, you're basing your entire resolution on an assumption about other people's motives, without any support for that assumption at all. If your resolution stands alone -- it's something that you want to see done in and of itself -- that's fine; if it's a compromise that's intended to demonstrate to some of the people who support an approach you don't like that there's a better way, it's probably a waste of time. Clearly, it's based on my understanding of other people's motives. Clearly, also, I can't adapt it to every other person's motives -- every person has different motives. What I can do, and have been trying to do, is incorporate what I understand as the basis for each person's motives. If my current understanding of the basis of yours is correct, I think I would drop my changes to sections 2..4, and my capitalization changes. I think should [for example] change the phrase Debian GNU/Linux Distribution to one which more generically describes the distribution because that's what we're promising to keep 100% free software, and if we don't describe that promise properly that confuses people. However, given that I couldn't think of anyway to phrase the above paragraph without talking about the promise in the social contract, I think I should change my proposal back to using the We promise phrasing. Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing goals only amendments. As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. And how do you propose that happen? Huh? I'm talking, you're talking, other people are talking. How else would it happen?
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for your statement. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +, MJ Ray wrote: I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the rationale for your most recent amendment. Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes. Another way of looking at this issue is that editorial changes to policy are policy changes, and policy changes which do not entirely replace policy are editorial changes. It's not deceitful to represent something for what it is. However, if you are arguing that I should not change capitalization of section titles and should leave sections 2, 3, and 4 alone, I should probably point out that Anthony Towns has done a fair job of convincing me that those changes are irrelevant to the current ballot and that I should drop them for that reasons. Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking you a question, which you did not answer. You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable. I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief. Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that. To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license which: [a] Doesn't allow free distribution [b] Doesn't let us provide source code [c] Doesn't let us change it [d] Discriminates against some people [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license [g] Is specific to Debian [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute such software. Are you claiming Raul has pointed out that this is a stupid idea is sufficient reason for us to distribute such software? It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. I'm the one who claims that we don't distribute such software. You're the one asking ME to prove something that never happens. You're the one who claims that our existing practice is to distribute such software. All you have to do is provide an example of that practice. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you? Now you're confusing existing practice with existing policy. I do not claim that I'm documenting existing policy. 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and introducing more tension within the social contract. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. I intend to preserve this distinction. I do understand that my current proposal still needs a bit of work to properly express that distinction. I also intend to preserve the other aspects of both what the social contract says and how we've been acting on it. 5. transition plan for non-free packages. A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy. That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal. This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale. Ok. My next proposal
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes. Let us be clear and agree on this: your amendment would change debian's practices. It is not just a wording change to deliver the same result. To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license which: [a] Doesn't allow free distribution [b] Doesn't let us provide source code [c] Doesn't let us change it [d] Discriminates against some people [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license [g] Is specific to Debian [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute such software. Please tell me why debian could not distribute software in non-free which has a licence that says: Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence The release of this software offered to the debian project may be copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian project or as part of a CD prepared by a debian developer. Any distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to the copyright holder. The software may not be modified and must not be used for tasks involving nuclear reactions. The software is covered by patent EP 394160 so it may only be used by holders of a suitable patent licence until 2010. This software may not be distributed on a removable magnetic disk containing any other copyrighted material. [ENDS] I think this licence prevents free distribution, doesn't provide source code, prevents modification, discriminates against non-DDs and commerce, requires an additional licence, is specific to debian and contaminates other software. I may need to refine it, but I think the spirit is right. A reason to include such software is not an argument I can make. I do not believe there is a compelling reason to have any of non-free in debian's archive any more, while others do. I think you may be one who does. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Whether we currently have such software is not the whole issue. You claimed that your proposal does not contain policy changes, although you no longer claim that. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. That may be an oversight. If the claim is not clear, we should repair it, not remove it as your proposal does. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 04:18:09PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Let us be clear and agree on this: your amendment would change debian's practices. It is not just a wording change to deliver the same result. How is this clear? What are the changes? To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license which: [a] Doesn't allow free distribution [b] Doesn't let us provide source code [c] Doesn't let us change it [d] Discriminates against some people [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license [g] Is specific to Debian [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute such software. Please tell me why debian could not distribute software in non-free which has a licence that says: Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence The release of this software offered to the debian project may be copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian project or as part of a CD prepared by a debian developer. Any distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to the copyright holder. I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a gross violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces payment from non-DD mirror operators. Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities, I'm already changing debian's practices, in the sense that I've got you responding to my posts, which is something Debian wouldn't be involved in if I hadn't made those posts. No GR needed. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. Whether we currently have such software is not the whole issue. You claimed that your proposal does not contain policy changes, although you no longer claim that. I see this as new policy which does not conflict with existing policy. I can see that there is a sense of the concept policy change which this satisfies. However, I was using the more blatent meaning of that phrase. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. That may be an oversight. If the claim is not clear, we should repair it, not remove it as your proposal does. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 16:40:17 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a gross violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces payment from non-DD mirror operators. Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey area, so I present: Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence v2 The instance of this software offered to the debian project may be copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian project or as part of an operating system distribution prepared by a debian developer. Any distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to the copyright holder. The software may not be modified and must not be used for tasks involving nuclear reactions. The software is covered by patent EP 394160 so it may only be used by holders of a suitable patent licence until 2010. This software may not be distributed on a removable magnetic disk containing any other copyrighted material unless it is a distribution prepared by a debian developer. [ENDS] Are there any taboos about asking for payment from for-charge mirrors, if there are any? Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...] This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your request borders on the absurdly unreasonable. It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about existing pracice to making claims about future practice. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible. Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. As I understand it, if the package is well-formed, not full of bugs and causes no legal problem for the debian mirrors, then it can get into non-free (or non-US/non-free). See the Debian Policy Manual at http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about auxiliary distributions may be an oversight. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:16:59PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Whether such a mirror counts as part of the project might be a grey area, so I present: [a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities [...] This is not an absurdity. This is an attempt to create an example which could be accepted at present, but would not be allowed after your amendment. In a way, you asked me to do it. Please don't complain when I try to satisfy your request. I already said that I think your request borders on the absurdly unreasonable. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible. Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. If you don't honestly believe that your examples are representative of existing practice, then I am not comfortable talking with you. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about auxiliary distributions may be an oversight. If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 18:01:54 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have over-edited it. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an example of it. On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. Poor wording. I should have written current practice, as in the earlier claim. Highlighting that error is pedantry IMO. It's like rolling a normal die three times and concluding that it will never show a 6. Just because you have no observation of it does not mean it is impossible. Given that we have more than three packages we distribute, it's a bit different from drawing a conclusion from three rolls of a die. Only in scale. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are commercial. Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. I think we already have this, but it might not always be as obvious as my example. If I distributed mpg123 as part of a radio station music player system, I would have to obtain a new copyright licence. If I just used it to make such a system for my own commercial use, I would have to do that. And what is this substantial change? Make non-free into part of the debian distribution. The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions. You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive exist because of an oversight in the social contract? Stop putting words in my mouth. I suggest that not making a similar claim about auxiliary distributions may be an oversight. If I've misunderstood you, I've misunderstood you so badly that I don't have the slightest clue as to what you're talking about. It really is not a difficult concept: if you are only trying to clarify this, if the social contract statement about non-free not being part of the distribution is incomplete, it should be completed and not removed. To remove it means that you reduce that separation, IMO. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. The reconciliation of this viewpoint with Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software is quite strained; and many actually do see it as a requirement that documentation itself satisfy the guidelines of the DFSG. [Additionally, no one who claims that documentation doesn't need to satisfy the DFSG has come forward with a rubric to distinguish documentation from software.] As far as licenses go, their status as legal documents may affect their copyrightability, but moreover, their modifiability. As such, I don't think anyone is calling to strictly apply the DFSG to them. Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all. I gather you're discussing the non-free proposal, as the SC modification does clear up the former half of the above debate. Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
[a license which makes the software useless to our users] So what? On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:34:21PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Please explain why you think that licence makes the software useless to our users. I think nearly all aspects of it have appeared in some licence for a non-free package individually. I have combined them to make a pathological case and edited the wording. Possibly I have over-edited it. All general purpose computers I know of use magnetic media, the license appears to not allow distribution onto such media. On top of that it's patent restricted, which limits use. On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. This reminds me of a rotten apple argument -- apples with minor blemishes can be useful to make pie. But, just because you can make an apple pie with apples which have any sort of blemish doesn't mean that an apple which combines all those blemishes is worth anything. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? I'm complaining because what you're proposing is absurd. I am not proposing an absurdity, as I have presented you with an example of it. Are you saying your example was not absurd? On the other hand, you cannot present a logical argument that your proposal does not change current practice, because that claim is absurd. That works for definitions of current practice which involve only hypothetical practices. You've yet to provide a concrete example where current practice would be changed. I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to only current instances of existing practice. Because instances which have never happened do not exist. You may not generalise like that. Why? Existing refers to that which exists. Poor wording. I should have written current practice, as in the earlier claim. Highlighting that error is pedantry IMO. You can call that pedantry -- but as I see it you're not talking about current practice. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. Sorry. From your above examples, you're asking I not infringe on some rights of someone to use Debian to distribute for pay software. And now you're asking me to believe that in doing so you're defending existing practice. The example only requires payment in some circumstances, but still breaks that DFSG. We already have software in non-free which is only free for some limited range of tasks. mpg123 is probably the best known example, but there might be other better ones. There are a range of discrimination clauses available. I tried to make my example discriminate against commerce and people who are not debian developers. If you prefer, I can rewrite it so that people only have to pay if they are either a member of a certain ethnic group, or are commercial. And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? Please explain why existing practice forbids licences which do not meet any DFSG. If you honestly believe that distributing software which our users must pay for is existing practice, I don't even know where to begin. I think we already have this, but it might not always be as obvious as my example. If I distributed mpg123 as part of a radio station music player system, I would have to obtain a new copyright licence. If I just used it to make such a system for my own commercial use, I would have to do that. But
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
MJ == MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MJ There is no other way for something to be part of the debian MJ distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed MJ list stands. It's not clear to me how true the claim that the DFSG are not a closed set of requirements is. That's certainly the assertion of debian-legal. ANd as a reader and infrequent contributer to that list, I think there have been some fairly arbitrary decisions made by that community. I don't think we'll actually know how closed a set of requirements the DFSG is until we are faced with a major challenge of the current process--a case in which a significant minority believes the current process has broken. We've had such minorities--the LaTex project, the APSL folks, and one other. But they never pursued any sort of challenge to the consensus of debian-legal in a procedurally valid manner. As such all we have right now is a claim by a lot of people that the DFSG is open. In practice that currently means the DFSG is in fact open. I suspect it will remain so until and unless some particularly arbitrary decision causes us to question the process. --Sam
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Anthony Towns (eventually, after a few false leads) managed to find some shareware in non-free a few weeks back. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; Further discussion is precisely this scenario. The social contract's ambiguity about handling of non-free software is what led to Andrew's drop non-free proposal. Eh, I think it's safe to say that Andrew's opinion on what's best for Debian and our users is what led to the drop non-free proposal. It would be more accurate to say that my observation of the opinions of a group of people is what led to that proposal. If it were just me, it wouldn't have looked the same, and I probably wouldn't have bothered at all (I just don't care that much; I won't be greatly concerned if majority desire for the presence of non-free causes the default option to win). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:29:45AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: Anthony Towns (eventually, after a few false leads) managed to find some shareware in non-free a few weeks back. Is it still there? Even if it is, there are a number of other examples where we stopped distributing shareware because it was shareware. -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy guideline #3. It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Bruce Perens has also stated that when he wrote the damn thing, he meant all the stuff that goes on the CD by software. I don't think it's at all relevant to the current discussion, though. Either GFDL-licensed stuff can go in main or it can't; either non-free will be there or it won't, and neither of those two decisions alone can compel Can Debian distribute GFDL-licensed stuff? to be No. I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. (Or spread FUD) -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:09:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about our existing practices. Huh? We didn't make any particular decision to stop distributing shareware afaik. sharefont was removed because it didn't have proper licenses, not because it had shareware stuff in it. rar and unrar seem to be the only really obvious shareware in unstable/non-free atm, afaics, but edict, fractxtra, and gsfonts-other also might include some shareware-ish bits. This reminds me of a rotten apple argument -- apples with minor blemishes can be useful to make pie. But, just because you can make an apple pie with apples which have any sort of blemish doesn't mean that an apple which combines all those blemishes is worth anything. The same argument applies to dropping non-free: just because some blemishes are okay, like the BSD advertising clause perhaps, doesn't mean we want to be using software that's full of worms, like restrictions on commercial distributions. I don't think it makes much sense for Debian to be drawing the line and forbidding anyone to cross it, when our users are perfectly capable of making those decisions for themselves. You claimed that my proposal would have us stop distributing something we currently distribute. I asked you what. Are you sure? I claimed This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as claiming non-free meets some DFSG in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01563.html but in reply you claimed that there are no such packages at present. Even if that is true, that isn't the same thing. As a result of existing practice, every non-free package meets some of our guidelines. How is that not the same thing? If someone presents a package with a license that allows us to distribute it, but doesn't meet any of the DFSG, currently, we'll accept it. If the social contract is changed as you propose, we'll reject it. That's a substantive policy change: it'll change what software can actually sit on the ftp site. And if you really think it's never going to happen anyway, there's no point making that change to the social contract. There's no practical point certainly, but there's no philosophical point either: if even the worst non-free licenses we can imagine comply with some part of the DFSG, then we're not taking any particularly worthy stand by increasing our exclusivity. In fact, it's not like rolling a die at all. People act from motivations and goals, not from pure randomness. It's not simple randomness, no, and I made no reference to that aspect of dice-rolling. You simply cannot claim that a change which prevents something possible under current practice is not a change of current practice. That does not depend on pure randomness. In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're different. And the cow jumped over the moon. That was a complete non sequitur, afaics. MJ Ray's example wasn't any more theoretical than someone asking what Debian's take on any license that hasn't already made it into the archive is. There's some joke about going to Scotland for the first time and seeing one black sheep from a train, then concluding that all sheep in Scotland are black! All you can conclude for sure is that there is at least one sheep in Scotland with the parts you saw being black. You can make guesses based on the available evidence, but they can be disproved by a counter-example. I am trying to construct a counter-example, which you refuse to discuss properly. I don't consider theory to be practice. Sorry. And that's just proving MJ Ray's point that you're refusing to discuss this properly. And what is the positive reason for debian to want to distribute such a thing? The same as for all non-free software we distribute: someone finds it useful, and we're able to do so at little to no cost to ourselves. But that's not why we're distributing that software -- that's a blemish. We're distributing the software because it offers some other freedoms for at least some of our users. I can't imagine why you think distributing the distributed-net client enhances anyone's freedom in any way. Heck, take that package: it can't be freely redistributed by anyone but Debian (failing #1, #5, #6, #7, #8), it doesn't come with source code (#2), you can't make derived works either legally or practically (#3), leaving two guidelines met, #4 because it's irrelevant, and #9 unless you take in .. their official distribution to be analogous to the requirement of all other programs .. must be free software. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:55:03AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Anthony Towns wrote: It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. All the software in main. *shrug* You can play word games all you like, but the claim that we require everything in main to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG is simply false. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. This is a matter of some (heh) debate. Anyone who's debating whether we actually require it right now is foolish. We don't. See http://people.debian.org/~ajt/sarge_rc_policy.txt if you want something written up. Look through the archive, or the RC bug list, if you want evidence that would refute such claims. There's not much debate about whether we should require everything in main to be DFSG-free -- that would also be foolish, because we'd be unable to distribute the GPL, and thus unable to distribute any GPLed software. There's also not much debate about whether we should require documentation and data in main to be DFSG-free -- there's a fairly good consensus that we should require it in the relatively near future. There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses, ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone making serious alternative suggestions. So no, I don't really think this is a matter of much debate. Andrew's proposal does nothing to affect this at all. I gather you're discussing the non-free proposal, as the SC modification does clear up the former half of the above debate. Well, yes, that's what the Subject: is all about... Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:42:05AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: [ ] Drop non-free [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software Keep non-free as is (unproposed) Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; Further discussion is precisely this scenario. No, that's not the case. Debian resolving to keep non-free as is is not the same as Debian deciding to discuss the matter further. In particular, that option is required to allow people to vote: [ 1 ] Keep non-free [ 2 ] Drop non-free [ 3 ] Further discussion should they prefer to keep non-free, but believe that dropping it is an acceptable outcome if that's what most of Debian prefers. That's how I expect to vote. I'd be very surprised if there weren't a quarter of Debian who would rather keep non-free than drop it (considering that's around the proportion who maintain non-free packages), so without the separate option, this proposal seems impossible to pass. Note that: 100 votes Further discussion Drop non-free 290 votes Drop non-free Further Discussion will cause Further discussion to win; while: 50 votes Keep non-free Further discussion Drop non-free 50 votes Keep non-free Drop non-free Further discussion 290 votes Drop non-free Keep non-free Further discussion will cause Drop non-free to win. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/ I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
Because the requirement for main is that it satisfy all of our free software guidelines. As I understand it, GFDL does not properly satisfy guideline #3. It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [For the record] I disagree that documentation does not need to satisfy the requirements of the DFSG. Bruce Perens has also stated that when he wrote the damn thing, he meant all the stuff that goes on the CD by software. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 05:06:24AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: I don't think it's at all relevant to the current discussion, though. Either GFDL-licensed stuff can go in main or it can't; either non-free will be there or it won't, and neither of those two decisions alone can compel Can Debian distribute GFDL-licensed stuff? to be No. Yep. Neither of those two decisions alone. However, taken together, the outcome would be rather inevitale. I can only presume that Raul is trying to appeal to people who want to drop non-free, who want to get GFDL-licensed stuff out of main, and who want to keep GFDL-licensed stuff. That's nuts. It's my observation that a number of people have inconsistent outlooks on various aspects of the non-free issue. For example, consider the thread which contains repeated claims about human ethics and the evilness non-free software. The only way I know of to address these sorts of inconsistencies involves examples. (Or spread FUD) This is the third time I've seen you use the term FUD on this list in reference to my posts. In no case do you seem to justify your use of the term (What's the fear? What's the uncertainty? What's the doubt?) Of the three cases, this is probably the least objectionable (after all, I am talking about potential outcomes, and a discussion of possibilities might be considered fud). However, if you're going to accuse me of something I'd really prefer you'd be more specific. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way with a single proposal. The remove non-free issue is a specific instance of the people have criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons issue. Only so far as remove non-free is an instance of something requiring a SC change to perform. Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the remove non-free issue. What does addressed coherently mean, given this state of things? Your editorial changes to clauses 1-4 and your substantial changes to clause 5 seem to be totally independent to me. The editorial changes to clauses 1-4 should be proposed as an amendment to the Editorial changes GR, not this one. Combining the two distinct issues into one makes the proposal less coherent. I think it is trying to ride unrelated changes through together by stealth. There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other different editorial changes proposals. In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe you're aware of it. I'm glad you're aware of it. Why not second and amend that instead, for most of your changes? Reduce this amendment only to include your new clause five. I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in the social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice. Including claims that substantially change current positions does not do that. You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do. Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; 3. the request for redistributors to check non-free licences; 4. the commitment to provide infrastructure; 5. transition plan for non-free packages. While I think the introduction of the last two is laudable, the first seems questionable and I dislike losing the other parts. Ok, I'll generate these afresh. This will take a bit of time -- hopefully I'll post them all by tomorrow, but by tomorrow is not a promise. Thank you for these. They have made the amendment much clearer to me and I hope others find them useful too. The first in particular highlights the unrelated nature of clause 5 changes to the others. Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere. Oh, cute, sarcasm. That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should look up the meaning of the word. It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone read the previous proposal drafts for my change comments. That your statement is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of what you wrote. No, it still isn't sarcasm. I was stating that people are able to, basically agreeing with your claim that I am able to. I made no suggestion that people should do it. I just noted that I would rather not. I am almost horrified that you misinterpreted it so badly. There is no suggestion that people should do it. If anything, there is an implied sentiment that we should dismiss your incoherent amendment and spend our time more profitably. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way with a single proposal. On 2004-01-21 20:03:23 + Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The remove non-free issue is a specific instance of the people have criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons issue. On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 11:09:58AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Only so far as remove non-free is an instance of something requiring a SC change to perform. Also because of the for a wide variety of reasons, and the people have criticised aspects. Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the remove non-free issue. What does addressed coherently mean, given this state of things? Your editorial changes to clauses 1-4 and your substantial changes to clause 5 seem to be totally independent to me. The editorial changes to clauses 1-4 should be proposed as an amendment to the Editorial changes GR, not this one. Combining the two distinct issues into one makes the proposal less coherent. I think it is trying to ride unrelated changes through together by stealth. The changes to clauses 2-4 are independent. The changes to clause 1 include changes to keep non-free in perspective. Of course, I also make a change to clause 1 to make it conform to the recent constitutional amendment. And, I make a change to clause 1 to make it conform to our existing practice of supporting GNU/Hurd and [so far, to a mild degree] BSD. If you want me to drop those from my proposal, you have to convince me that dropping them is a good idea. Your belief that they're not related is more, in my opinion, a matter of your focus than anything I care about. There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other different editorial changes proposals. In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe you're aware of it. I'm glad you're aware of it. Why not second and amend that instead, for most of your changes? Reduce this amendment only to include your new clause five. [1] It's not been introduced. [2] I'm more in favor of that proposal than his other proposal, so I have less reason to introduce an amended version. I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in the social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice. Including claims that substantially change current positions does not do that. You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do. Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. 3. the request for redistributors to check non-free licences; A change in what we ask other people to do, but not a change in what we do. 4. the commitment to provide infrastructure; A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. 5. transition plan for non-free packages. A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we do. While I think the introduction of the last two is laudable, the first seems questionable and I dislike losing the other parts. Ok, I guess I understand that that's how you feel. Note that, if you otherwise like my proposal or some aspect of my proposal more than Andrew's or some aspect of Andrew's but this bothers you, you're free to propose your own amendment which fixes the problems you see. Ok, I'll generate these afresh. This will take a bit of time -- hopefully I'll post them all by tomorrow, but by tomorrow is not a promise. Thank you for these. They have made the amendment much clearer to me and I hope others find them useful too. The first in particular highlights the unrelated nature of clause 5 changes to the others. Even if you're totally focussed on non-free, I think that at the very least the change to the third sentence of section 1 is related. In my opinion, the change to the first sentence of section 1 is also related -- the before version didn't indicate that we were distributing a general purpose OS. I think this is important context in understanding dependencies, and [therefore] what non-free is not allowed to be depended on for. Yeah, it's a really obvious change. However, it seems to me that every new person introduces additional possibilities for missing the obvious. It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone read the previous proposal drafts for my change comments. That your statement is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of what you wrote. No, it still isn't sarcasm. I was stating that people are able to, basically agreeing with your claim that I am able to. I made no suggestion that people should do it. I just noted that I would rather not.
Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: Andrew's drop non-free proposal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html I think this will require further ballots. At the very least, he seems to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's possible that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for that potential outcome). Quite obviously, it is not an attempt to resolve all further unrelated issues. By this definition there are no GRs that do not require further ballots. Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are Debian's Free Software Requirements, rather than merely being guidelines. This would also require updating the social contract and the constitution. I very strongly object to that. http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/dfsg_guidelines.html explains what guidelines means here. It is the correct name. Andrew's grammatical fixes proposal [has not yet been introduced]: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html It's not clear whether this proposal will be on this ballot or on some other ballot. If it winds up on the same ballot, in some respects, this proposal is very similar to mine. In fact, I adopted my proposed changes to sections 2, 3 and 4 from a draft of this proposal. Likewise, Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues I've raised. I don't believe that is accurate. However, this proposal is also more ambiguous than mine in a number of places (in sections 1 and 5), and its still largely based on the state of software back in the mid-90s when the social contract was first drafted. And I believe the opposite is true here. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
