Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 15:25]: Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. How can it be proven to be wrong? If some license makes it impossible for some people in a sadly far to often occuring situation, how can such software be free? Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness into the discussion. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924133227.ga17...@client.brlink.eu
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: Hi, On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +0100, Steve McIntyre a écrit : Chris wrote: I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the dissident test. Hi Steve, I think that the dissident test and others are indirectly mentionned to everyone who wants to join Debian: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_pp1.txt?revision=1246view=markup 60 PH7. How do you check if a license is DFSG-compatible? 61 62 PH8. There are a few tests for this purpose, based on (not really) common 63 situations. Explain them to me and point out which common problems can 64 be discovered by them. Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. DFSG 5, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups If I'm a freedom fighter (or, political activist in the middle east right exactly now), I want to be able to use Debian to help work with my other freedom fighters, without the gov't knowing I even have such software. If I change Tor slightly for our use, and distribute it as TorForkOne, I don't want to have to put my real name, real anything. If it just needs any name, fine, but not my real one. It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG point 5. More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who wish to not use their real name, for privacy or otherwise. I do not find these tests particularly useful, but as long as they are promoted this way, we are likely to see people using them on this lit. Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. Please note some of the casualities such as ipadic were later accepted to Debian main with some efforts. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641070 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/09/msg00010.html I hope my summary page gives good idea what has been. http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense As I noted there, such extreme interpretation of license text can yield GPL2.0 to violate DFSG #5. I think after he failed to shootdown OpenOffice for its licence, he became quiet. If we followed such tests by him, we would not have LibreOffice either now. If you think they create more noise than signal, perhaps you or others can consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to nm.debian.org. I agree. I think we should clean some wiki-pages holding such extreme positions. Osamu kbai, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:32:27PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 15:25]: Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. How can it be proven to be wrong? If some license makes it impossible for some people in a sadly far to often occuring situation, how can such software be free? Mmmm I think there were some miscommunication ... I was try to say that Henning Makholm's theoretical issues were proven to be wrong. Only DSFG itself needs to be used. Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness into the discussion. That is exactly my position: You do not need the dissident test. With this thought, I got ipadic and few more packages in non-free re-uploaded to main and approved by FTP master. My action of this and its result proved that Henning Makholm's position of theoretical issues are wrong. So we should not continue using such dissident test. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924140452.GD8910@goofy.localdomain
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:10]: Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness into the discussion. That is exactly my position: You do not need the dissident test. What you quote as being exactly [your] position is me trying to say that we need the dissident test. (And I hope noone gets DD who has not looked at it.) Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924142558.ga17...@client.brlink.eu
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
Hi, On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:04:22PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: ... Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. DFSG 5, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups If I'm a freedom fighter (or, political activist in the middle east right exactly now), I want to be able to use Debian to help work with my other freedom fighters, without the gov't knowing I even have such software. If I change Tor slightly for our use, and distribute it as TorForkOne, I don't want to have to put my real name, real anything. I do not see such requirement in this license. TorForkOne can be considered organization name for this case. So what is the problem? If it just needs any name, fine, but not my real one. It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG point 5. More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who wish to not use their real name, for privacy or otherwise. But that is not the only outcome of the famous but ill guided dissident test. That is why we need to use DFSG itself and stop using dissident test. This has been discussed many times. I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools available in his hand to change his regime. So why worry about unenforceable part of the license text. That is what I think. For more http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense . Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924142911.GE8910@goofy.localdomain
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 04:25:58PM +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote: * Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:10]: Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. You do not need the dissident test for that. You can also just quote the DFSG. The tests are just a method to make people not look to much at the letter but at the spirit of the DFSG to distinguish some pure theoretical issues from real world issues, i.e. to bring some saneness into the discussion. That is exactly my position: You do not need the dissident test. What you quote as being exactly [your] position is me trying to say that we need the dissident test. (And I hope noone gets DD who has not looked at it.) I see your position. But this dissident test has been streched to the extreme and shot down many licenses as DFSG violation. * requiring organization name as in this case is quite reasonable to ask. * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable (GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export control compliance.) I understand requirering to disclose unreasonble amount of personal information is problemetic... Dissident test may have some value but that is not the final test. Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924144235.GA26564@goofy.localdomain
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
* Osamu Aoki os...@debian.org [120924 16:43]: I see your position. But this dissident test has been streched to the extreme and shot down many licenses as DFSG violation. I think it would help if you actually use that test and argue about that case. I.e. what effect does some requirement have for someone in this case and why those are a problem or not a problem. Just arguing that this is only a corrolary of DFSG and not a part of it, you do not argue about the merrits of the license and increase the danger the discussion ends in some meaningless sophistry like the one you fear this test can be used for. Bernhard R. Link -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120924165915.ga18...@client.brlink.eu
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
Osamu Aoki wrote: On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:40:20AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote: It's not wrong, I think this is a perfectly great application of DFSG point 5. More simply, it checks for license that discriminates against people who wish to not use their real name, for privacy or otherwise. Back in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/08/msg00123.html (which http://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest fails to credit) I documented its origins in Brian Ristuccia's messages http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/05/msg00057.html and http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/08/msg00282.html But that is not the only outcome of the famous but ill guided dissident test. That is why we need to use DFSG itself and stop using dissident test. This has been discussed many times. Fine. Any time you see someone say or write that it fails the dissident test, replace the dissident test with a combination of DFSG 1 and DFSG 5 in your mind. Many others would like to keep the shorthand. I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools available in his hand to change his regime. So why worry about unenforceable part of the license text. That is what I think. Oh wow. I am really sorry to see such contempt for dissidents emailed out from an address @debian.org - they may be fighting completely evil state oppression while wishing to respect the wishes of their fellow creative workers. Do you really think that avoiding a law which says all authors must be shot would mean someone will necessarily ignore authors' licences? For more http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense . I remain uncomfortable with that licence which - due to what that page dismisses as bad English - seems to import the entire law of every country as a condition of the licence. And that page also notes the internal contradictions in the licence. But whether or not that is worth the risk is for ftp-masters and project leaders, ultimately. The arguments on that wiki page look like rants, misunderstandings and personal abuse of some past contributors. It's shameful and needs a good clean-up. I'm trying to recover my wiki account, but I may forget before that process completes, so please feel free to step in. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tgceh-0004ec...@petrol.towers.org.uk
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:29:11 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: [...] I also think if a person is a real dissident who is determind to violate lethal legal requirements of his regime, he will not hesitate to violate a petit legal requirement of the license text. He will use any tools available in his hand to change his regime. So why worry about unenforceable part of the license text. That is what I think. As far as I see it, the rationale here is that the dissident is considered as an outlaw in his/her *own* totalitarian state. But, if he/she is compelled to violate the license of a piece of software, he/she may face legal issues even *abroad*, in other, (more) democratic countries (where the copyright holders of the piece of software may live). This is unfair and it's due to the license. Such a license should be regarded as including a non-free restriction, that discriminates against dissidents in totalitarian regimes (DFSG#5). So, I disagree with you: in my own personal opinion, the dissident test is a useful means to spot non-free restrictions and should not be abandoned. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpNNOvGnBS40.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: But this dissident test has been streched to the extreme and shot down many licenses as DFSG violation. snip * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable (GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export control compliance.) No, it is not reasonable, and it is not DFSG-compliant. If there are licenses being allowed into Debian that are enshrining requirements to comply with unrelated laws, that's something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Do you have a specific example of software in main whose license requires the user/developer to comply with particular laws? (Note that the GPL2.0 does NOT require compliance with the law; it only states that you may not use other legal obligations as a justification for failure to comply with the terms of the GPL.) The DFSG does not allow licenses to discriminate against fields of endeavour, and that absolutely includes illegal ones. The law is sometimes wrong; it's important that users of Debian not be exposed to double jeopardy as a result, including in cases of civil disobedience. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: dissident test has been proven wrong and should not be used any more
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 22:04:22 +0900 Osamu Aoki wrote: [...] On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 09:18:42AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: [...] I think that the dissident test and others are indirectly mentionned to everyone who wants to join Debian: http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/nm/trunk/nm-templates/nm_pp1.txt?revision=1246view=markup 60 PH7. How do you check if a license is DFSG-compatible? 61 62 PH8. There are a few tests for this purpose, based on (not really) common 63 situations. Explain them to me and point out which common problems can 64 be discovered by them. Agh ... who added this ... test should be done only to DFSG. The proposed dissident test does not work and is proven to be wrong in some cases already. I disagree: the dissident test was not proven wrong. It is a thought experiment helping to spot non-free restrictions, and it is grounded in DFSG #1 and #5. I do not find these tests particularly useful, but as long as they are promoted this way, we are likely to see people using them on this lit. Some people (Henning Makholm et al.) were on debian-legal around 2003 using this dissident tests to shoot down many non-GLP/BSD licenced packages. Please note some of the casualities such as ipadic were later accepted to Debian main with some efforts. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=641070 http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2011/09/msg00010.html I hope my summary page gives good idea what has been. http://wiki.debian.org/IpadicLicense I think that your analysis is flawed. The Ipadic license indeed includes an ambiguous clause: which is distributed substantially in the same form as set out herein. This part of the license could be interpreted as a non-free restriction on modification failing DFSG#3, or as just a qualifier for the types of distributions that require the attachment of the NO WARRANTY section. I think that having such an ambiguity in a license is a lawyer-bomb and I feel very uncomfortable with such a clause in a package distributed in main. But the other issue is definitely worse: | such intended | distribution, if actually made, will neither violate or otherwise | contravene any of the laws and regulations of the countries having | jurisdiction over the User or the intended distribution itself This is non-free, as already explained by Steve Langasek in https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00076.html Your counter-arguments are flawed, IMHO: * the dissident test is not about impossible notification requirements (maybe you are confusing it with the desert island test?) * section 7 of the GNU GPL v2 does not discriminate against persons or groups of persons: it does not impose anyone to comply with laws *as a condition for the permission grant*; it merely says that other conflicting legal obligations do not excuse the licensee from the conditions of the license; this is completely different * the rant about Che Guevara is very confusing and I think it fails to make any useful point * I have many doubts on the acceptability of the CPL v1.0, hence seeing its presence in main proposed as a reason to accept other dubious or non-free software into main strikes me as very unfortunate * what RedHat does (or does not do) seems to be of little relevance, when one has to evaluate whether a package belongs in Debian main As I noted there, such extreme interpretation of license text can yield GPL2.0 to violate DFSG #5. I repeat: this is not the case! [...] If you think they create more noise than signal, perhaps you or others can consider asking for a change to the NM templates via a bug reported to nm.debian.org. I agree. I think we should clean some wiki-pages holding such extreme positions. I instead think that the wiki page that you created holds misguided positions and wrong interpretations. The fact that the FTP-masters accepted ipadic into main does not impress me much: as far as I can tell, the FTP-masters have gradually become looser and looser in abiding by the Debian Social Contract and in properly checking packages for DFSG-freeness. Unfortunately, I should add... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE pgpwVLq2FJJFC.pgp Description: PGP signature
