Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes:
I like Andrew's version: brevity is the soul of wit. In Policy,
main, contrib, and non-free are in italics and so I presume that italics
are more appropriate than quotes ('). But that's probably a technical
matter for the committer.
It is probably time to bring this issue to a conclusion. I can't think
of anything else to add and the combination of Russ' and Andrew's text
does a good job of fleshing out the nature of the three archive areas.
Here's what I applied as an informative change. Thank you for the
proposal, and to everyone for the wording review!
--- a/policy.sgml
+++ b/policy.sgml
@@ -465,6 +465,20 @@
headingThe main archive area/heading
p
+ The emmain/em archive area comprises the Debian
+ distribution. Only the packages in this area are considered
+ part of the distribution. None of the packages in
+ the emmain/em archive area require software outside of
+ that area to function. Anyone may use, share, modify and
+ redistribute the packages in this archive area
+ freelyfootnote
+ See url id=http://www.debian.org/intro/free;
+ name=What Does Free Mean? for
+ more about what we mean by free software.
+ /footnote.
+ /p
+
+ p
Every package in emmain/em must comply with the DFSG
(Debian Free Software Guidelines).
/p
@@ -496,6 +510,13 @@
headingThe contrib archive area/heading
p
+ The emcontrib/em archive area contains supplemental
+ packages intended to work with the Debian distribution, but
+ which require software outside of the distribution to either
+ build or function.
+ /p
+
+ p
Every package in emcontrib/em must comply with the DFSG.
/p
@@ -536,6 +556,15 @@
headingThe non-free archive area/heading
p
+ The emnon-free/em archive area contains supplemental
+ packages intended to work with the Debian distribution that do
+ not comply with the DFSG or have other problems that make
+ their distribution problematic. They may not comply with all
+ of the policy requirements in this manual due to restrictions
+ on modifications or other limitations.
+ /p
+
+ p
Packages must be placed in emnon-free/em if they are
not compliant with the DFSG or are encumbered by patents
or other legal issues that make their distribution
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:34:52AM +1200, Andrew McMillan wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:05 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes:
2.2.1 The main archive area
The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution;
only the packages in this area are considered part of the
distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require
software outside of that area to function.
I'd prefer even more succinct brevity, along the lines of:
Anyone may use, share, modify and redistribute the packages in
the 'main' archive area freelyfootnoteSee
http://www.debian.org/intro/free for more about what we mean by
free software./footnote.
main - 'main' to make it clearer that it is a proper noun
as capitalising it would not work.
I like Andrew's version: brevity is the soul of wit. In Policy, main,
contrib, and non-free are in italics and so I presume that italics are
more appropriate than quotes ('). But that's probably a technical matter
for the committer.
It is probably time to bring this issue to a conclusion. I can't think
of anything else to add and the combination of Russ' and Andrew's text
does a good job of fleshing out the nature of the three archive areas.
and then going on to the language already there, which already requires
that all the packages comply with the DFSG.
2.2.2 The contrib archive area
The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to
work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but which require
software outside of the distribution to either build or function.
Apart from this requirement, all software in the contrib archive area
complies with the DFSG and with the policy requirements in this
manual.
2.2.3 The non-free archive area
The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to
work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that do not comply with
the DFSG or have other problems that make their distribution
problematic. They may not comply with all of the policy requirements
in this manual due to restrictions on modifications or other
limitations.
I don't think any of the above changes anything normative, so once we
reach consensus on the wording I can go ahead and apply this.
--
We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop.
We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work?
-- Buckminster Fuller
CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe
c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller
http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: 2.2.1 The main archive area The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution; only the packages in this area are considered part of the distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require software outside of that area to function. OK, how about this suggestion for a conclusion to Russ' text on the main archive area: Everyone (from end users to redistributors to derivatives) can be confident that they can use, share, modify and redistribute the software in the Debian main archive area freelyfootnoteSee http://www.debian.org/intro/free for more about what we mean by free software./footnote. and then going on to the language already there, which already requires that all the packages comply with the DFSG. 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function. Apart from this requirement, all software in the contrib archive area complies with the DFSG and with the policy requirements in this manual. 2.2.3 The non-free archive area The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that do not comply with the DFSG or have other problems that make their distribution problematic. They may not comply with all of the policy requirements in this manual due to restrictions on modifications or other limitations. I don't think any of the above changes anything normative, so once we reach consensus on the wording I can go ahead and apply this. -- We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work? -- Buckminster Fuller CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:05 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: 2.2.1 The main archive area The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution; only the packages in this area are considered part of the distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require software outside of that area to function. OK, how about this suggestion for a conclusion to Russ' text on the main archive area: Everyone (from end users to redistributors to derivatives) can be confident that they can use, share, modify and redistribute the software in the Debian main archive area freelyfootnoteSee http://www.debian.org/intro/free for more about what we mean by free software./footnote. It sounds a little My little pony-ish to me, but it's harmless enough. I think including a definition of 'Everyone in brackets potentially reduces the meaning of the word rather than enhances it. In some future time will someone say I'm not an end user, redistributor or derivative (deriver?) of Debian: am I part of 'Everyone'?. I'd prefer even more succinct brevity, along the lines of: Anyone may use, share, modify and redistribute the packages in the 'main' archive area freelyfootnoteSee http://www.debian.org/intro/free for more about what we mean by free software./footnote. software - packages, since not everything in 'main' is software. main - 'main' to make it clearer that it is a proper noun as capitalising it would not work. Other minor wording changes because it felt better to me that way, but I'm not wedded to them. Cheers, Andrew. and then going on to the language already there, which already requires that all the packages comply with the DFSG. 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function. Apart from this requirement, all software in the contrib archive area complies with the DFSG and with the policy requirements in this manual. 2.2.3 The non-free archive area The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that do not comply with the DFSG or have other problems that make their distribution problematic. They may not comply with all of the policy requirements in this manual due to restrictions on modifications or other limitations. I don't think any of the above changes anything normative, so once we reach consensus on the wording I can go ahead and apply this. -- We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work? -- Buckminster Fuller CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/ -- andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN Never be led astray onto the path of virtue. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Hi! On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:16:21 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Actually, with the release of GNU/kFreeBSD variants for Squeeze, this paragraph is not totally accurate. That's a very good point. Yeah, I was about to comment on just that but then I saw Charles mail. (It could also be argued that GNU/Hurd is also part of the distribution, even though it has never been released.) How about ‘Debian operating system’ ? The other advantage I see is that it avoids the paradox that the non-free packages that are distributed by the Debian project are not part of the Debian ‘distribution’. I personally prefer Debian distribution and don't find that paradoxical, but I don't feel very strongly about it. FWIW me too. On the other hand, perhaps it is better to postpone this discussion until the Squeeze release, and use the generic name that will be in the title of the press release. Nah, I think this is a simple enough report that I'd rather resolve it quickly while we're talking about it. I also checked for other instances in the current policy package and I'm filing a new bug report with a patch for that. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 09:20:42PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes: On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:06 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote: The DFSG defines freedom in software licenses, but doesn't provide a statement of assurance to users. Maybe a statement that Debian main supports the Four Freedoms[1][2] would turn the prescriptive DFSG into a qualitative benefits statement. I think that you're treading on thin ground pushing for that. The DFSG is a defining document in Debian, so if you want to narrow or broaden that coverage you should be doing so by promoting changes to that document - not to policy. Personally I'm happy with the freedoms described by the DFSG as it stands at present, but if you believe it is flawed you should argue those flaws in the wider arena of Debian via a GR or such. I don't think CJ is advocating changing the DFSG, but rather is concerned that the way the DFSG is worded may not make it clear to people what the motivation is and what the implications are for users. In other words, a rephrasing or preamble, not any sort of normative modification, that says this means you can use the software for absolutely anything you want. I can see that point, although I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for Policy, since Policy is largely aimed at people who are reasonably familiar with Debian and are looking for technical guidance. I would tend to point people at http://www.debian.org/intro/free or some similar sort of place to explain the motivation and background for what Debian means by free. Russ' interpretation of my thinking is correct. I certainly don't want to change the DFSG. I'm thinking about a customer who is afraid of using Debian for some business purpose, for example. Their lawyers have spread fear and uncertainty: beware, the BSA[1] may come after you. They read the DFSG and they learn what we mean by freedom, but they still might not connect the dots to realize that Debian main is doing its best to effectively guarantee ... the four freedoms ... the best protection against BSA interference that a mere document can provide ... what we all know is our protected freedom. But I think we haven't said it directly enough. http://www.debian.org/intro/free is good for a footnote, but it also doesn't succinctly say that Debian main trys to ensure that it can be freely usable and redistributable (with the requisite freedom protections for your users too) by anyone for any purpose. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance -- We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work? -- Buckminster Fuller CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 07:35 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote: I don't think CJ is advocating changing the DFSG, but rather is concerned that the way the DFSG is worded may not make it clear to people what the motivation is and what the implications are for users. In other words, a rephrasing or preamble, not any sort of normative modification, that says this means you can use the software for absolutely anything you want. I can see that point, although I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for Policy, since Policy is largely aimed at people who are reasonably familiar with Debian and are looking for technical guidance. I would tend to point people at http://www.debian.org/intro/free or some similar sort of place to explain the motivation and background for what Debian means by free. Russ' interpretation of my thinking is correct. I certainly don't want to change the DFSG. I'm thinking about a customer who is afraid of using Debian for some business purpose, for example. Their lawyers have spread fear and uncertainty: beware, the BSA[1] may come after you. They read the DFSG and they learn what we mean by freedom, but they still might not connect the dots to realize that Debian main is doing its best to effectively guarantee ... the four freedoms ... the best protection against BSA interference that a mere document can provide ... what we all know is our protected freedom. But I think we haven't said it directly enough. http://www.debian.org/intro/free is good for a footnote, but it also doesn't succinctly say that Debian main tries to ensure that it can be freely usable and redistributable (with the requisite freedom protections for your users too) by anyone for any purpose. Phew :-) I still think I side with Russ that Policy is for people who already understand this stuff, and we should have separate documents that provide the overview level. I also think that proper clarification on these points will ideally need a multi-lingual and multi-cultural dimension to capture the exact shades of meaning needed. Regards, Andrew. -- andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN You've been leading a dog's life. Stay off the furniture. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: Especially since the main, contrib, and non-free archive areas are not described anywhere else (as far as I can tell), it would be helpful if some descriptive text were added to explain the intent of policy. I suggest the following in the hopes that others will flesh out the descriptions to be more accurate and complete than my first cut: 2.2.1 The main archive area The main archive area is where the core of the Debian GNU/Linux system lives. All of the software in main can stand alone as a fully operational system without any software from contrib or non-free. The software included in main is vetted to ensure compliance with policy and the DFSG. In addition it does not depend on any software outside main, it is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents, and is believed to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archive operators. I think we need to say explicitly that only main is part of the Debian distribution. I'd also rather not add any mentions of legal vetting other than referring to the DFSG, since this is a bit of a minefield. How about: The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution; only the packages in this area are considered part of the distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require software outside of that area to function. and then going on to the language already there, which already requires that all the packages comply with the DFSG. 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area is where fully policy compliant and DFSG free software is put that depends on or recommends non-free software or software that is otherwise unavailable within Debian. Contrib software is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents and to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archives. However, contrib software usually requires using either non-free software or software that is otherwise not available or not policy compliant. The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function. Apart from this requirement, all software in the contrib archive area complies with the DFSG and with the policy requirements in this manual. 2.2.3 The non-free archive area The non-free archive area is where software that is freely redistributable, but not fully policy compliant (which can be as simple as failing the software build requirements) or not DFSG free, or is encumbered by patents or is affected by other legal issues that could affect our users or our ftp infrastructure. The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that do not comply with the DFSG or have other problems that make their distribution problematic. They may not comply with all of the policy requirements in this manual due to restrictions on modifications or other limitations. I don't think any of the above changes anything normative, so once we reach consensus on the wording I can go ahead and apply this. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: However, I do wish that we could figure out how to write a minefield-avoiding third sentence for your paragraph on the main archive area that definitively asserts (what I believe we all know to be true) that Debian main is more or less a guarantee that the software therein is freely usable (and distributable) in the broadest sense. That is, that Debian main is unreservedly usable for personal, non-profit, for-profit, or, in short, for any purpose. But I'm blanking on text that would work. Isn't that basically what the DFSG says, though? At least, that was the logic that I was using. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Russ, Your text accommodates almost all of my ideas while being simpler, clearer and minefield-avoiding. So I enthusiastically endorse it. However, I do wish that we could figure out how to write a minefield-avoiding third sentence for your paragraph on the main archive area that definitively asserts (what I believe we all know to be true) that Debian main is more or less a guarantee that the software therein is freely usable (and distributable) in the broadest sense. That is, that Debian main is unreservedly usable for personal, non-profit, for-profit, or, in short, for any purpose. But I'm blanking on text that would work. On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: Especially since the main, contrib, and non-free archive areas are not described anywhere else (as far as I can tell), it would be helpful if some descriptive text were added to explain the intent of policy. I suggest the following in the hopes that others will flesh out the descriptions to be more accurate and complete than my first cut: 2.2.1 The main archive area The main archive area is where the core of the Debian GNU/Linux system lives. All of the software in main can stand alone as a fully operational system without any software from contrib or non-free. The software included in main is vetted to ensure compliance with policy and the DFSG. In addition it does not depend on any software outside main, it is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents, and is believed to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archive operators. I think we need to say explicitly that only main is part of the Debian distribution. I'd also rather not add any mentions of legal vetting other than referring to the DFSG, since this is a bit of a minefield. How about: The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution; only the packages in this area are considered part of the distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require software outside of that area to function. and then going on to the language already there, which already requires that all the packages comply with the DFSG. 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area is where fully policy compliant and DFSG free software is put that depends on or recommends non-free software or software that is otherwise unavailable within Debian. Contrib software is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents and to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archives. However, contrib software usually requires using either non-free software or software that is otherwise not available or not policy compliant. The contrib archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but which require software outside of the distribution to either build or function. Apart from this requirement, all software in the contrib archive area complies with the DFSG and with the policy requirements in this manual. 2.2.3 The non-free archive area The non-free archive area is where software that is freely redistributable, but not fully policy compliant (which can be as simple as failing the software build requirements) or not DFSG free, or is encumbered by patents or is affected by other legal issues that could affect our users or our ftp infrastructure. The non-free archive area contains supplemental packages intended to work with the Debian GNU/Linux distribution that do not comply with the DFSG or have other problems that make their distribution problematic. They may not comply with all of the policy requirements in this manual due to restrictions on modifications or other limitations. I don't think any of the above changes anything normative, so once we reach consensus on the wording I can go ahead and apply this. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work? -- Buckminster Fuller CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:17:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: However, I do wish that we could figure out how to write a minefield-avoiding third sentence for your paragraph on the main archive area that definitively asserts (what I believe we all know to be true) that Debian main is more or less a guarantee that the software therein is freely usable (and distributable) in the broadest sense. That is, that Debian main is unreservedly usable for personal, non-profit, for-profit, or, in short, for any purpose. But I'm blanking on text that would work. Isn't that basically what the DFSG says, though? At least, that was the logic that I was using. The DFSG defines freedom in software licenses, but doesn't provide a statement of assurance to users. Maybe a statement that Debian main supports the Four Freedoms[1][2] would turn the prescriptive DFSG into a qualitative benefits statement. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms_(software)#Definition 2. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html -- We are on a spaceship; a beautiful one. It took billions of years to develop. We're not going to get another. Now, how do we make this spaceship work? -- Buckminster Fuller CJ Fearnley| Explorer in Universe c...@cjfearnley.com | Dare to be Naive -- Bucky Fuller http://www.CJFearnley.com | http://blog.remoteresponder.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Le Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:38:14AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : I think we need to say explicitly that only main is part of the Debian distribution. I'd also rather not add any mentions of legal vetting other than referring to the DFSG, since this is a bit of a minefield. How about: The main archive area comprises the Debian GNU/Linux distribution; only the packages in this area are considered part of the distribution. None of the packages in the main archive area require software outside of that area to function. Hi Russ, Actually, with the release of GNU/kFreeBSD variants for Squeeze, this paragraph is not totally accurate. How about ‘Debian operating system’ ? The other advantage I see is that it avoids the paradox that the non-free packages that are distributed by the Debian project are not part of the Debian ‘distribution’. On the other hand, perhaps it is better to postpone this discussion until the Squeeze release, and use the generic name that will be in the title of the press release. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes: Actually, with the release of GNU/kFreeBSD variants for Squeeze, this paragraph is not totally accurate. That's a very good point. How about ‘Debian operating system’ ? The other advantage I see is that it avoids the paradox that the non-free packages that are distributed by the Debian project are not part of the Debian ‘distribution’. I personally prefer Debian distribution and don't find that paradoxical, but I don't feel very strongly about it. On the other hand, perhaps it is better to postpone this discussion until the Squeeze release, and use the generic name that will be in the title of the press release. Nah, I think this is a simple enough report that I'd rather resolve it quickly while we're talking about it. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: For another data point, I have the opposite preference to Russ. I refer to the “Debian operating system”, in part because of the confusion over “distribution”. Like Russ, I'm not going to get upset if that preference isn't followed by others. In cases like this, though, “Debian operating system” would be clearer. I think it's because I've been doing this sort of thing for a long time, but to me an operating system is only a tiny, tiny fraction of the software that we distribute in Debian. Things like bioperl or atlas or openoffice.org or iceweasel are, to me, obviously not part of an operating system. They're applications or tools, which sit on top of the foundation that's created by the operating system. To me, operating system is roughly what's Priority: required; all the other stuff is something else. But this probably just dates me more than forms a cogent argument. :) -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:06 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote: On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:17:16PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: CJ Fearnley c...@cjfearnley.com writes: However, I do wish that we could figure out how to write a minefield-avoiding third sentence for your paragraph on the main archive area that definitively asserts (what I believe we all know to be true) that Debian main is more or less a guarantee that the software therein is freely usable (and distributable) in the broadest sense. That is, that Debian main is unreservedly usable for personal, non-profit, for-profit, or, in short, for any purpose. But I'm blanking on text that would work. Isn't that basically what the DFSG says, though? At least, that was the logic that I was using. The DFSG defines freedom in software licenses, but doesn't provide a statement of assurance to users. Maybe a statement that Debian main supports the Four Freedoms[1][2] would turn the prescriptive DFSG into a qualitative benefits statement. Hi, I think that you're treading on thin ground pushing for that. The DFSG is a defining document in Debian, so if you want to narrow or broaden that coverage you should be doing so by promoting changes to that document - not to policy. Personally I'm happy with the freedoms described by the DFSG as it stands at present, but if you believe it is flawed you should argue those flaws in the wider arena of Debian via a GR or such. The clarifications Russ suggested definitely do seem worth including, and I would say it is especially because they refer out to that defining document that gives them their strength in policy. If they were to place additional constraints on what software was acceptable in main it would make policy more confusing, not less, and would undermine the DFSG as a decision-making tool. Regards, Andrew McMillan. -- andrew (AT) morphoss (DOT) com+64(272)DEBIAN A tall, dark stranger will have more fun than you. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Andrew McMillan and...@morphoss.com writes: On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 18:06 -0400, CJ Fearnley wrote: The DFSG defines freedom in software licenses, but doesn't provide a statement of assurance to users. Maybe a statement that Debian main supports the Four Freedoms[1][2] would turn the prescriptive DFSG into a qualitative benefits statement. I think that you're treading on thin ground pushing for that. The DFSG is a defining document in Debian, so if you want to narrow or broaden that coverage you should be doing so by promoting changes to that document - not to policy. Personally I'm happy with the freedoms described by the DFSG as it stands at present, but if you believe it is flawed you should argue those flaws in the wider arena of Debian via a GR or such. I don't think CJ is advocating changing the DFSG, but rather is concerned that the way the DFSG is worded may not make it clear to people what the motivation is and what the implications are for users. In other words, a rephrasing or preamble, not any sort of normative modification, that says this means you can use the software for absolutely anything you want. I can see that point, although I'm not sure that it makes that much difference for Policy, since Policy is largely aimed at people who are reasonably familiar with Debian and are looking for technical guidance. I would tend to point people at http://www.debian.org/intro/free or some similar sort of place to explain the motivation and background for what Debian means by free. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#594542: debian-policy: add descriptions for main, contrib, and non-free archive areas
Package: debian-policy Version: 3.8.0.1 Severity: wishlist Especially since the main, contrib, and non-free archive areas are not described anywhere else (as far as I can tell), it would be helpful if some descriptive text were added to explain the intent of policy. I suggest the following in the hopes that others will flesh out the descriptions to be more accurate and complete than my first cut: 2.2.1 The main archive area The main archive area is where the core of the Debian GNU/Linux system lives. All of the software in main can stand alone as a fully operational system without any software from contrib or non-free. The software included in main is vetted to ensure compliance with policy and the DFSG. In addition it does not depend on any software outside main, it is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents, and is believed to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archive operators. 2.2.2 The contrib archive area The contrib archive area is where fully policy compliant and DFSG free software is put that depends on or recommends non-free software or software that is otherwise unavailable within Debian. Contrib software is believed to be wholly unencumbered by patents and to have no legal encumbrances that could affect users or our ftp archives. However, contrib software usually requires using either non-free software or software that is otherwise not available or not policy compliant. 2.2.3 The non-free archive area The non-free archive area is where software that is freely redistributable, but not fully policy compliant (which can be as simple as failing the software build requirements) or not DFSG free, or is encumbered by patents or is affected by other legal issues that could affect our users or our ftp infrastructure. Obviously, I intend these paragraphs to be added as descriptions and all of the normative parts of those sections to be preserved (I didn't copy them here to save bits and bandwidth). -- System Information: Debian Release: 5.0.5 APT prefers stable APT policy: (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Kernel: Linux 2.6.26-2-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core) Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash debian-policy depends on no packages. debian-policy recommends no packages. Versions of packages debian-policy suggests: ii doc-base 0.8.20 utilities to manage online documen -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
