Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
Hi Paul, Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 14.39:02, Paul van der Vlis a écrit : Very silent here. In my opinion it's not a good idea to make Debian FSF-free at the moment. But what we should do is to make Debian almost FSF-free and make some steps in the good direction. In my opinion we could do the following: 1. Move the non-free and the contrib repository from the debian.org domain to another domain name, under control of DD's. Given our Social Contract, paragraph 5 [SC5]: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. I would argue that moving contrib and non-free out of Debian infrastructure would need a Social Contract amendment, thereby a GR. (If you read it to the letter, it could not be strictly needed, as one could read we have created … in our archive as a historical fact more than a binding point. Yet I think such a change has to go through the body of developers). 2. Change the installer in a manner that no non-free firmware is advised anymore, but that you still can use it. … besides on hardware where you can't. We currently have both documentation and code that permit one user that chooses so to use firmwares (e.g.). Removing both these is IMHO controversial and should probably also go through a GR. The firmware question is also a slightly different one than the whole non- free problem: some firmwares are as freely distributed as CPU microcode, where the latter is an absolute requirement to have an OS run. My feeling here is that there ''might'' be consensus around making a new firmware archive area, specifically for pieces of code not executed by CPUs but needed to make them run. 3. Remove recommendations or suggestions to non-free software in packages. See the tech-ctte discussion: http://bugs.debian.org/681419 From the non- debated part of the statement: The Debian Policy Manual states (§2.2.1) that packages in main must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation or execution. Both Depends: package-in-non-free and Recommends: package-in-non-free clearly violate this requirement. So these issues are serious bugs already. For part not addresses by the tech- ctte bug, I think you won't find consensus to drop non-free Suggests. What we cannot do at the moment is remove non-free and contrib completely, and we also cannot remove all documentation about non-free software and firmware. I think even moving them out of debian.org realm would need a GR, both because it's IMHO a change of our foundation documents and because it's a sufficiently important change to warrant an explicit (n)ack from the body of developers. (And that's without talking about the infrastructure changes to make it clear on the Debian side while the mirrors (that are not all under our responsibility), will keep on putting main/contrib/non-free contents on the same harddisks, making the whole exercise quite moot IMHO.) Cheers, OdyX ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 03:22:55PM +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. [...] (If you read it to the letter, it could not be strictly needed, as one could read we have created … in our archive as a historical fact more than a binding point. It's difficult to read it that way. It was intended to denote areas set aside for the purpose of servicing users who require certain software that doesn't comply with the DFSG. What you *can* say is that it doesn't mandate that these areas be heavily populated. As for these non-Debian pieces existing on the same hardware - the FSF recommends and distributes Trisquel, a Debian rebranding at one remove, and yet, if you take a cursory glance at at the places where Trisquel may be downloaded, you will note non-free software readily available. Without this inconsistency being resolved first, I'd suggest that this particular issue is not a high priority. It is not an issue for other GNU/Linux distributions recommended by the FSF. -- Mason Loring Bliss((IF I HAD KNOWN IT WAS HARMLESS ma...@blisses.org ))I WOULD HAVE KILLED IT MYSELF. ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
Hi Didier, Op 23-11-12 15:22, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud schreef: Hi Paul, Le mercredi, 21 novembre 2012 14.39:02, Paul van der Vlis a écrit : Very silent here. In my opinion it's not a good idea to make Debian FSF-free at the moment. But what we should do is to make Debian almost FSF-free and make some steps in the good direction. In my opinion we could do the following: 1. Move the non-free and the contrib repository from the debian.org domain to another domain name, under control of DD's. Given our Social Contract, paragraph 5 [SC5]: We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. I would argue that moving contrib and non-free out of Debian infrastructure would need a Social Contract amendment, thereby a GR. (If you read it to the letter, it could not be strictly needed, as one could read we have created … in our archive as a historical fact more than a binding point. Yet I think such a change has to go through the body of developers). When we create an archive at another domain name as debian.org (e.g. on non-free.org), why isn't it our archive? But no problem with a general resolution. 2. Change the installer in a manner that no non-free firmware is advised anymore, but that you still can use it. … besides on hardware where you can't. What I mean is that the installer offers a way to use non-free firmware, but it just not advices it. We currently have both documentation and code that permit one user that chooses so to use firmwares (e.g.). Removing both these is IMHO controversial and should probably also go through a GR. The firmware question is also a slightly different one than the whole non- free problem: some firmwares are as freely distributed as CPU microcode, where the latter is an absolute requirement to have an OS run. My feeling here is that there ''might'' be consensus around making a new firmware archive area, specifically for pieces of code not executed by CPUs but needed to make them run. 3. Remove recommendations or suggestions to non-free software in packages. See the tech-ctte discussion: http://bugs.debian.org/681419 From the non- debated part of the statement: The Debian Policy Manual states (§2.2.1) that packages in main must not require or recommend a package outside of main for compilation or execution. Both Depends: package-in-non-free and Recommends: package-in-non-free clearly violate this requirement. So these issues are serious bugs already. For part not addresses by the tech- ctte bug, I think you won't find consensus to drop non-free Suggests. I think most people will not have big problems with it, suggestions are not really important in my opinion. What we cannot do at the moment is remove non-free and contrib completely, and we also cannot remove all documentation about non-free software and firmware. I think even moving them out of debian.org realm would need a GR, both because it's IMHO a change of our foundation documents and because it's a sufficiently important change to warrant an explicit (n)ack from the body of developers. (And that's without talking about the infrastructure changes to make it clear on the Debian side while the mirrors (that are not all under our responsibility), will keep on putting main/contrib/non-free contents on the same harddisks, making the whole exercise quite moot IMHO.) True, it will be work. And maybe non-free and contrib will have not the same nice infrastructure as debian.org has. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On 11/24/12 05:03, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: An amusing comparison may be drawn between the FSF's rejection of four-clause BSD licenses and the FSF's support of invariant sections in the GFDL. Documentation is not software. I wouldn't be surprised to find differences when comparing licenses drawn for software to licenses drawn for documentation. Software freedom guidelines have nothing to do with documentation freedom. Applying one to the other shows profound lack of thought and is going to waste a lot of time. ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:18:33AM +1300, Bryan Baldwin angrily pronouced: Documentation is not software. They are one and the same. Software is documentation and vice versa. The machinery upon which they run is what varies here. Applying one to the other shows profound lack of thought and is going to waste a lot of time. What a rude little fellow! No, the realm of intellectual property considers both, we are discussing organizations that deal with both, and it makes perfect sense to consider the realm of free licenses as a whole. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org They also surf who awake ? sleep : dream; http://blisses.org/ only stand on waves. ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
Michael Gilbert said: Correction: specific guidance. Even if there may be other things that might be needed for FSF endorsement, it seems that removing references to non-free software from package control files and updating the website et al [0] is both specific and provides a good place to start. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681419#37 ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On 23/11/12 10:38, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: [...] As for these non-Debian pieces existing on the same hardware - the FSF recommends and distributes Trisquel, a Debian rebranding at one remove, and yet, if you take a cursory glance at at the places where Trisquel may be downloaded, you will note non-free software readily available. Without this inconsistency being resolved first, I'd suggest that this particular issue is not a high priority. It is not an issue for other GNU/Linux distributions recommended by the FSF. Please report that as a bug. Any non-free software that is included on an FSF-approved distro is considered a critical bug. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios) Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro Quito, Ecuador (593)2-600 8579 (593)98-454 8078 ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
Quiliro Ordóñez said: Please report that as a bug. Any non-free software that is included on an FSF-approved distro is considered a critical bug. I think they're perhaps referring to mirrors that also distribute other things. Notice that the statement was very carefully worded to say at the places where Trisquel may be downloaded. Anyone is free to download Trisquel and redistribute it. Any non-free software that's being distributed is being done by third parties on their own servers. Trisquel neither supports non-free software nor provides infrastructure for it. ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Jason Self wrote: Michael Gilbert said: Correction: specific guidance. Even if there may be other things that might be needed for FSF endorsement, it seems that removing references to non-free software from package control files and updating the website et al [0] is both specific and provides a good place to start. [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=681419#37 That link has no guidance from the FSF yet. That bug log includes only senior debian developers engaged in a debate about the issue. If FSF doesn't produce guidance there, then the decision that happens there will only a barometer of a certain subset of debian developers. Debian works by addressing bug reports, so specific collaboration could help by FSF representatives filing bug reports about the problems they see in various areas: bugs.debian.org/www.debian.org bugs.debian.org/bugs.debian.org bugs.debian.org/qa.debian.org [etc.] Please give us specific items to consider and fix. Thanks, Mike ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 05:59:48PM -0500, Quiliro Ordóñez wrote: Please report that as a bug. Any non-free software that is included on an FSF-approved distro is considered a critical bug. It's not included as a part of Trisquel, but alongside it on the same hardware, which is a sticking point for Debian despite Debian explicitly disclaiming those pieces of software. They're not part of Debian despite Debian developers generally being the people making them fit with Debian. I realize that this doesn't apply to everyone, but for *me* I think it's sufficient, and if we look at the bigger picture, the story with Trisquel is very similar. I'd much rather we pursue things like non-free software not being recommended or suggested, with the caveat of course that if it's required for someone's computer to work, that be handled appropriately. I think RMS's position on proprietary video games for GNU/Linux applies fairly directly here - it's not ideal, but getting people onto a free platform is a good side effect nonetheless. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/nonfree-games.html I think this shows the sort of compromise that is needed to get people into the free software world. For instance: However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do. So, is it ideal having this software? No. Is there good that can come of it? Yes. An example of this would be my search for this very specific article. I wasn't looking for this, but a byproduct of my search was coming across this: www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/ryzom-free-software I tend to think that the equivalent side-effect to someone running Debian GNU/Linux on hardware that requires non-free firmware to run is that if they have a good experience generally with Debian (or any other free OS) they are going to want to use compatibility with that as part of their criteria for selecting their next computer, assuming resources sufficient to have such a choice. This is a Good Thing. It gets more people into the free software world, and vastly increases the chance that these people will themselves feel empowered to try writing free software someday. And that's something we want. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgEwige Blumenkraft! (if awake 'sleep (aref #(sleep dream) (random 2))) -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
Re: [Fsf-Debian] Silent here
Mason Loring Bliss said: It's not included as a part of Trisquel, but alongside it on the same hardware. Can you point to a concrete example? The only one I can think of would be mirrors that also mirror other GNU/Linux distributions, thereby picking up the non-free software from those other distributions and not from Trisquel. So what you're referring to isn't software hosted by and on Trisquel hardware but on third party hardware run by that third party. You may as well point out that $random_web_site also distributes proprietary software. By that logic as long as they also have a copy of Trisquel on their server Trisquel is responsible for what that site is doing, or that if I were to have Debian .isos and Windows .iso on my server that the Debian Project is somehow responsible for that as well, which they clearly are not. In contrast, the Debian Project states that they officially support this software, tell people how to use and install it, provide infrastructure for it, and, as you've pointed out, the same people work on both so the lines are a little more blurry here. ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
