Control: clone -1 -2 Control: retitle -2 parallel 20161222-1.1 NMU removes upstream "--will-cite" functionality Control: reopen -2 Control: notfound -2 20161222 Control: found -2 20161222-1.1 Control: severity -2 important
Dear Ole, Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > I have noticed that you have submitted a patch and closed this bug: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=905674#77 > > I am sure you are trying to do what is best for free software. But > what looks like a good idea in the short run, may be a bad idea in the > long run. The long term survival of Debian depends on others building > free software that can be packaged, so destroying these people's > livelihood is a bad long term strategy. > > In the reasoning for the patch you state: > > Quoting the gpl-faq: > [... https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#RequireCitation ...] > > > Therefore, removing this to make parallel GPL-compliant. > > I think this is due to a misunderstanding. > > Maybe you not aware that Richard M. Stallman together with the GNU > leaders have cleared the wording and the use of the citation notice, > and that he sees it as complying fully with GPLv3? I was not, but, as Debian Developer, I don't feel bound by RMS' (and "GNU leaders", whomever this designates) statements about GPLv3. What mattered for this now-closed bugreport is our DFSG; specifically it's article 1 (emphasis mine) and 5. > DFSG 1: Free Redistribution > The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or > giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software > distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license > *may not require a royalty or other fee* for such sale. > DFSG 5: No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. Le lundi, 3 décembre 2018, 18.55:00 h CET Ole Tange a écrit : > Your patch therefore does not change the GPLv3-compliancy: The code > was already compliant. I disagree; my understanding is that RMS&co declared parallel to carry no problem with regards to GPLv3 compliance in October 2018, probably for the latest upstream release. But Debian ships parallel 20161222 which: * contains a request for the user to promise academic citation, * imposes the use of either "--will-cite" or the presence of a `~.parallel/will-cite`, which makes it unnecessarily burdensome to use in a scripted manner. This is a clear attempt at side-stepping GPLv3 software freedoms by using guilt-inducting language. As the GPLv3 allows (almost any) modification, I've just went and did that, also to ensure that src:parallel can stay in the Debian main archive, where it belongs. > But what your patch *does* do, is to make it harder to earn a living > from developing GNU Parallel and will make it much harder for me to > justify spending time maintaining GNU Parallel. Be careful with such arguments: by merely distributing GNU parallel in its main archive, Debian is also vastly expanding the availability of GNU parallel. And if you do insist on getting Debian to rename it, you'll likely lose any incentive from "renamed GNU parallel" users getting it from the Debian archive. > As Nadia Eghbal puts it in > https://www.slideshare.net/NadiaEghbal/consider-the-maintainer: > > "Is it alright to compromise, or even deliberately ignore, the > happiness of maintainers so we that can enjoy free and open source > software?" > > This describes very well what you are doing with the patch, and I > refuse to think that was your goal. For the record: * My primary goal was to remove a "Release Critical" bug from Debian's next stable release, during a Bug Squashing Party; * While looking at this bug, it seemed obvious to me that merely removing the obnoxious phrasing and functionality was an easy way to fix this bug; in a GPLv3- and DFSG-compatible way. * I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, so my contribution was one- -off. * I did a Non-Maintainer Upload immediately, following DevRef 5.11.1: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/ch05.en.html#nmu-guidelines * I do think that making fine free software unnecessarily cumbersome to use, only to increase user's knowledge of the original author's funding initiatives is bad practice. This reduces the quality of software and is really on the line of what makes software really "free software" (I'm fine to disagree with RMS on that front). Weaker phrasing doesn't make the intent any better. * Prominent links or funding pitches are fine in _documentation_, as long as they: - don't imply that payment is mandatory; - don't impose citation; For instance, parallel 20161222 manpage's > If you pay 10000 EUR you should feel free to use GNU Parallel without citing. … is not acceptable IMHO. * I am not a Debian FTP-master, in charge of specific interpretations of the DFSG. > So if you want to help other developers make a living and thereby get > more free software made, I encourage you to revert the patch and > instead upgrade to 20180922: Maybe you simply were not aware that the > latest stable version (20180922) is *already* GPLv3 compliant. I am not the Debian maintainer of src:parallel, and updating upstream versions is not acceptable as NMU; I did the smallest change that seemed acceptable to resolve the RC bug. Be assured that my patch was not directed at you personally; I removed _technical functionality_ that I felt was the reported bug. But… I can see how this new situation is not ideal for you; I'm therefore hereby cloning this bug to document that my NMU removes the "--will-cite" functionality from upstream parallel. What should/could happen now is that: * interested parties (you, FTP-master, …) discuss on that bug; * the Debian maintainers, when (and if) updating src:parallel to a new upstream release, will decide to adopt, update or remove my patch. > Thanks for your work on free software. It is appreciated. Yours is appreciated too. Cheers, OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
