[Fsf-Debian] Stephano's talk at LibrePlanet
Was the video for this ever published? If so I apologize, but I haven't seen the link posted here? ___ 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] gap assessment
On 11/30/12 02:29, Osamu Aoki wrote: I think that analysis is quite sound. But I would add something to: 1) Exclusion of GFDL documentation of some essential software packages. This may be weak objection point from FSF based on Complete Distros. If not being a complete enough distribution isn't a bar, having to enable non-free to get access to FSF free documentation isn't acceptable, nor is it likely that Debian will change to accommodate different license terms for different types of works in main. I think the obvious solution is a `merge` repo, within which any package acceptable to FSF and unacceptable for Debian `main` can be put. That way FSF free users have what they need without enabling access to non-free, and licensing terms in Debian main remain consistent. GFDL works are probably the only packages that would be there, if so maybe call it gnu-docs or gnu-gfdl. ___ 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] user freedom also matters for cultural and opinion works [was: Re: Silent here]
I think that you are reading too much into what copyright licenses can do for you, or possibly mixing up the inspiration one gains from such works with the direct modification of them. For instance, I can draft art images in the style of Frank Frazetta, and make the figures, animals, and monsters very much like his work. But those images are my expressions and not litigious under copyright. If it was otherwise, Frank Cho might have gotten himself into some trouble already. I think remixes of art are fine, but I don't like making them myself. And they are not a necessary freedom. There is no dystopic control that could be forced on anyone by not being allowed to mix such works, and mixing occurs in spite of the fact that the materials they are derived from are not usually licensed with permission to modify. If you really had to make a collage style piece, but were prevented from sourcing other artist's works, it isn't too much work for you to make your own samples and piece them together. This is simply not something you can do with anything but the most trivial program unless you had Stallman and his a cadre of programmers writing a UNIX replacement. And that was only done once with some help from Mr. Torvalds. Artistic remixing isn't even the case in question. Debian isn't being stampeded with mixed media artists clamouring to get access to all the free samples of work only to find...oh darn, they are all in invariant clauses of GFDL docs. Works of opinion and personal views in the author's own words shouldn't be modified by third parties because they should remain in the author's own words. Users are already fully free without permission to modify those. ___ 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 12:55, Michael Gilbert wrote: 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. It's okay if specific bugs haven't been raised yet. This list seems to be the place to discuss the issues from which the bug reports will ultimately be derived. Collaboration isn't filing bugs, or at least it isn't _only_ filing bugs. Its both sides talking about things and working out what should be done. When the discussion list has done its job, there shouldn't be anyone one either side who is unsure of at least something that could be reported as a bug. Your response shows that the list hasn't done its job just yet. I'm not sure, but I think there are probably some people who work with both Debian and FSF. Even if there aren't, there surely are people in Debian that understand internal processes as initmately as FSF's philosophy. There won't be any lack of hands for noticing problems and writing bug reports. I expect bugs will be filed from people in both organizations. But simply waiting for the FSF to tell you where the problems are isn't a commitment to attain and maintain compliance with the free distribution guidelines. Such a commitment itself a requirement to attain compliance. ___ 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] No response?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/06/2012 07:49 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 03:50:23AM +, Clint Adams wrote: Do you understand how a sane and honest person might disagree with you given the preponderance of evidence? I agree and this is one of the criticism we need to address. But saying, in reply to this, see, we/you're lying is not enough to actually solve the issue. You're right, it doesn't solve the issue, it supplies visibility of the issues. A compliant has been made that the discussion can't go forward until all parties ascribe to Mr. Finney's Orwellian newspeak. I disagree. Its because we've fleshed out that disagreement that the anatomy of the problem is now this clear. At that point, I argue that those people should be free to do what they want with their time and Debian resources, no matter if the non-free bits merely happen to be *colocated* with the official free bits that form the Debian distribution. I trust the maintainers of nonfree would not in fact pack their bags, shut off the lights, and lock the doors if it were decided at the end of the day to move contrib and nonfree off site. I'm not sure the open use of Debian resources is the best way to go, but I don't think that is a show stopper in and of itself. I'm deeply ambivalent about colocation. I think it could be done in a way that works. But right now, if you http/ftp to the storage and drill down, its all there in gory detail. In Mr. Adams examples, the bug reports and sundry forms are already marked nonfree in an obvious way. I don't think plastering _more_ nonfree nomenclature on top of that is good enough either. Cutting and pasting FSF philosophy with every article of nonfree is inelegant. Why not take a copy of the Debian services framework (whichever services that might mean), reupholster it, and serve it up from a separate URL under a different name, exclusively for contrib and nonfree? That would take some effort up front, but then who really wants to troll through all the html or whatever and figure out how to put surgeon general warnings on everything? (And please, refrain from lightly smash this down with no, you should delete non-free/contrib from your servers. That is indeed the *alternative* solution, but for the sake of searching from common ground, we need to be creative and explore all the various possibilities.) Colocation could be done in such a way that the free and nonfree packages aren't part of the same structure. Which is to say I think one should have to navigate to a different URL, whether served by the same hardware or not, in order to browse the nonfree packages, bug reports, et al. Behind the scenes needs to mean completely behind the scenes, where the Debian nomenclature and anything nonfree never appear together on screen, whether the maintainers continue working transparently with each other or not. Maybe that didn't land as close as you might hope to your idea of ideal, but I trust it was neither light nor bashing. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQH6EIAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIHzEH/Rxs+AHI0ojBAlP+9CBNy6Tf vxdtBZAWTXOTG/dRt+Y0cbpwDw/3j38/0BipGFkHC2AzpXwcktn0iIsz0uNDJ7Yq 2smVXmo+zHa68qoV5NNZ92mSF3SvU9c/8A/FDp9roq7M0zq08LNQkVb7f1pLy6J6 aloqhW+WrV4djAclNJXCwzxAeX3qty87wvq99MGXAIFl24qBqyUeTsikidBJxwuv RiXHIStDJw7gZGvHiTomcG6qIcCI2DLS/DZVgeoV6N53NMKzhIx+94bHNLcwf/z4 juRse9b5okFNDA/dNzzcxpRriA4FpESsFevfNd3LFC6/SOxJ+hmKUFTVHQ/tyJU= =AU3w -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] No response?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/04/2012 08:12 AM, Paul Wise wrote: On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: I agree with the FSF when they say: Debian also provides a repository of nonfree software. I don't believe that putting the non-free software on a different set of infrastructure still maintained by Debian is meaningfully different to what we have now. Is there an opportunity to make the separation between what is and is not Debian even clearer, and to do it in a way that remains consistent with Debian's social contract? I think my idea would make it clearer. But not 100% sure it's worth the work. Maybe there are other things more important. Fundamentally, the issue seems to be about the clarity of the distinction between Debian (the 'main' section) and non-free/contrib. Do we have any opinion from RMS or other FSF folks about what amount of clarity is required before they would consider Debian a free distro? Until we have that there isn't much point discussing potential levels of separation. I agree. And it dances around the real issue. The point of separation of main from contrib/nonfree is moot. It doesn't matter whether Debian developers or maintainers work in both sectors or not. The only thing that really matters is what is in your literature, your documentation, and your repositories. Of course, people who really really cared about their freedom probably wouldn't want to work in both camps. It would be interesting to get a response directly from FSF _specifically for Debian_ to meet the free distribution requirements, but its terribly terribly redundant. FSF have *already* published their requirements in sufficient detail with which to begin work. Does anyone working on Debian really need a third party to give step-by-step plan to figure it out? Asking FSF to examine Debian to give you such a response is tantamount to saying, If you want us to be a free distribution, do our work for us. Being a free distribution is not mysterious, nor a moving target. Its all laid out rather unambiguously. Nonetheless, here is my take (not necessarily representative of FSF). * Remove all references to contrib/nonfree from *everything*. It should not appear in the comments of sources.list, or anywhere in the packages and documentation, or in Debian's websites and mailing lists. * No packages should require anything from contrib or nonfree to be installed (isn't this already true?). * No packages should reference, offer, or refer to any other nonfree software before, during, or after it is installed (even if it can be installed without the nonfree). * Replace all references like understanding that some users need nonfree with we are dedicated to identifying and removing all nonfree packages whenever discovered and as soon as they are discovered. It would also be helpful if Debian developers were frequently caught in the act of doing so, as well. Not just labelling nonfree as bugs and ignoring it for years. Thus, if I browse the Debian website, or download a Debian installer and install it, or join a Debian mailing list, I expect never to see, hear, or discover anything about any nonfree software or repository anywhere, unless it is in a blacklist explaining why it was removed/not included. Requests for support for nonfree should be denied without comments or references that point to where such support is available. As far as where contrib/nonfree should go, if there were no direct links from Debian's websites, mailing lists, documentation, packages, or software to them, that would be good enough for me. Wherever they end up going, Debian probably shouldn't be part of the title, either. Needless to say, I'm completely skeptical and incredulous. Here's why. Unless the majority of Debian's movers and shakers are happy with and excited about the prospect of doing all of the above, I don't think Debian will *ever* get to the point where its a fully free distribution. Plastering the website with 100% free notices doesn't mean anything and doesn't count. You have to *want* to be free to get free. If Debian really really wanted to be free, this discussion list wouldn't even exist. The devs would have simply gone out, done it, and filled out the application email for consideration by FSF like everyone else who's on that list already did. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQHPZWAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIIuAH+gIelA4gXrv9uCmv4zNFUb0X qzpLMbtmBhJ0Zf07kN21wl/++Lz3GH67H9b5Vbc6vnBoaanOgN/eIYTmZ8/Q2WyC xyxqZU3KDYeSh8Cr1viigFhazmgvLUfT1M6Uotkjqub1MDekly8BzYt8H2jMuJ6h ydAvY9VXVuV834lo3WF05cOOcOm3iP8cJDZpZT0Ns4NNhV+B1Vr9/fSYVcSX38zE 4mEupTyWVaZ6Hzj386HcLwSHUNxFdwHqvHFJxdXiXmDxvR6xRpXChiQQLrjKbvdC qkWDcn7iLjGikmc+KiKLXA/XR7h+5Yho8pMdHRHh0sFu18skd9W5gGcc6HrgAKw= =1NBk -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___
Re: [Fsf-Debian] The question behind the questions [was No response?]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/05/2012 11:01 AM, Mason Loring Bliss wrote: I tried in my small way to pursue Debian's inclusion in the FSF free distributions list. [...] I've heard just enough of Bryan's sort of views to solidy my opinion. [...] Support for non-free software is going to get more people to use free software. What was your small way of trying to get Debian on the FSF list? How many nonfree packages did you actually remove from the distribution? Am I right, at least in your case? For you, this about getting Debian into the FSF free distribution list without actually removing or stopping support for anything nonfree. I'm still struck by the image of overwrought zealots in an ivory tower throwing stones at the people building and maintaining the foundation of their tower. Is denying the Debian distribution a listing on FSF actually throwing stones? Being on that list is about actually being free, not pretending to be free by doing a lot of work for free software and distributing nonfree on the side. You said it yourself. You think distributing nonfree software helps free software. Why then do you need to try to label something free, when it obviously isn't? If there isn't a willingness to consider being flexible on both sides, then we might as well go back to Debian being hugely popular and the FSF promoting rebranding efforts like Trisquel and gNewSense. Yes, that is my feeling exactly. We *shouldn't* be flexable on freedom. If Debian wants to get on the free distribution list, Debian developers need to get to work on actually making the distribution free instead of trying to persuade the FSF to drop the first word in its name, or change that word to open. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQHbpdAAoJEM5s7GXJ0FEIh4YH/Aot9TkHDMYhiZa5t6TiRfjJ ORwF0VyHj4Qu4LcvuQ7Gbe0AOx4IBc3h4vDWpjRvk4q/HIuV0mTpdVfjh+rK/ri+ ZFt9NDnkaS+DmyxHWmqiK9qAYTULktLmIJxO4/+xCs3MryJEFa4FFFNXrtYnn8H0 5dJo5MX5UP/sTihXv/KmPHmQiSCcv3QbVLTHeLpu7h0WnEGSa3DmjAKgV2I8sldu yj4clsG/YRa3Fpzc5axquk00GToYmPokvUyexbLELyX33uc7H9+hJhb3BZ3v/aO0 kFTodgzh016F7DbKQueTL3US2l872HJlvBgN63m3P9T3xL1VGEDJJFfsYe01bcg= =HwRY -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list Fsf-collab-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
