Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Nathanael Nerode]

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
>   differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
>   the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
>   majority would be enough.
...
> All the relevant information about the
>   invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
>   don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
>   when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
>   but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
>   Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)

I just want to be clear on this. 
This proposal, if adopted, is a statement by the developers that the "DRM 
clause" and "Transparent Copies" clause, and any identical clauses stuck into 
other licenses, are presumed DFSG-free.  Right?

No comment or criticism was made in version 1 or 2 of this amendment on the 
problems found with these clauses.  The list of which were included verbatim 
in version 1 of this amendment, and included bits such as:

(c) As written, it would outlaw actions like changing the permission
of a copy of the document on your machine, storing it on an
encrypted file system, distributing a copy over an encrypted
link (Obstruct or control the reading is not clarified to apply
merely to the recipient), or even storing it on a file-sharing
system with non-world-readable permission

So, does this mean that if this amendment is passed, outlawing storing a copy 
of a document with non-world-readable permission is considered an acceptable, 
free restriction by the Developers?  Really?

I *hope* that this amendment is simply supposed to mean that the Developers 
don't believe that the DRM clause imposes such restrictions (despite the fact 
that reading it literally, it does).  But at the moment, which of these two 
positions is being pushed by the amendment is not clear to me.  Adeodato?

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

This space intentionally left blank.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Yavor Doganov]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:15:08 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:

> And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this "GFDL
> is non-free" hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free
> section, for ever?

I feel it the same way.  This is not a campaign for freedom, but an
action to cover Debian's guilty conscience.  Tolerating non-free
software is not what the Social Contract is about.  At the end, it
might result in something like "Yes, we are distributing non-free
software, but our main section is even more free".  Except that by
removing GFDLed docs won't make it more free.

The fact that people expressed the opinion that Debian doesn't
consider non-free software as antisocial and unethical scares me a
lot.  That means that I, as a user, cannot rely on Debian's judgement
for freedom.

-- 
Yavor Doganov


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Nathanael Nerode]

aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license
> that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG.

True, that is what he said, so I guess my comment was off-point.  Of course, 
everyone agrees that we should adhere to the spirit of the DFSG -- the people 
who consider the GFDL non-free are perhaps the most ardent advocates of this.  
We tend to believe that for a license to be Free, it must not impose any 
restrictions, intentional or unintentional, which are contrary to the spirit 
of the DFSG.

Simply claiming that something adheres to the spirit of the DFSG doesn't make 
it true. I believe that my description of the arguments of the people who 
want to ignore the problems with the text of the GFDL remains accurate: they 
want to look at the spirit of the license rather the actual text.  It's a 
tenable position, though I don't agree with it.

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

"(Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in
the interest of efficiency.)" --Steve Lanagasek,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> > The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> > files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> > are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> > relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> > appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> > there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> > surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.

> Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to
> build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an
> implicit grant of permission?

No.  What good is an implicit grant of permission under copyright law?

It's probably not an intended effect, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be
exploited to harm us if we leave it unaddressed.  (Not necessarily by the
current FSF regime, but copyrights can be transferred, yadda yadda.)

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Still, I have no confidence at this point.  I am quite sure that, even
>> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
>> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
>> long.
>
> What are you willing to stake on that, out of curiousity?
>
> How about a $100 donation to SPI if there's no such GR by 2007-04-01?

Hrm.  Ok, sure, but with tightened wording.

On the condition that:
  1) Anthony's original resolution passes, with neither alternative
 chosen; and
  2) No relevant change is made in the GFDL;
  3) The FSF continues to license its core manuals with the GFDL,
 including the use of invariant sections.
I predict that another GR will be introduced within 18 months from the
date the resolution passes, which has the substantial effect of
including the FSF's core manuals in Debian main.

If this prediction fails, then I'll gladly send in $100.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote 
> by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the 
> very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).

Having a majority vote amounts to a decision that the status quo does
not prohibit the GFDL.

> No, he must not make any such determination in cases where the DFSG is in 
> dispute. You keep asserting that, while ignoring the arguments I make as to 
> _why_. He would not be shirking his duty, since my whole point is that he 
> does not have that duty. He must not prejudge issues of DFSG 
> interpretation; that is not his job.

You say that he shouldn't make that interpretation, but you haven't
said anything about what he should do then, given that each option
represents an interpretive decision.  To have a 3:1 ballot requires
deciding that the resolution works an amendment to the DFSG.  To have
a majority ballot requires deciding that it doesn't.

> Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly 
> fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's 
> protection, believe it or not.

Really?  Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea?
Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25%
against majorities as high as 74%.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Hubert Chan]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:24:13 +1000, Anthony Towns  said:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori
>> when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was
>> believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into
>> main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys.

> See the mail in -private entitled "social contract and documentation
> policy" dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -, and realise that the GFDL
> came out three years later in March 2000.

Bah.  Why didn't GR 2005-02 get passed? :(

/me goes back to sitting in the MN queue

-- 
Hubert Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.uhoreg.ca/
PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA
Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7  5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA
Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net.   Encrypted e-mail preferred.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
> 
> The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.

Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of
this issue that are capable of acting like children.

Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come
through my mailbox the first time.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point.  I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.

What are you willing to stake on that, out of curiousity?

How about a $100 donation to SPI if there's no such GR by 2007-04-01?

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > set or not?
>
> The constitution says:
>
> "... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
> see 7.1(1),
> 7.1(3) and A.3(4)."
>
> I think that's pretty clear.

Sure, no one denies the Secretary the power to conduct votes within 
procedural guidelines.

> I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his
> powers in any way, shape or form.

But it doesn't follow from the "final decision on the form of ballot(s)" 
that the Secretary is the DFSG arbiter. You'd think the constitution would 
have mentioned that.

For instance, if the Secretary refused to include a GR amendment in a vote 
because he/she hated the proposer and merely declared it "just plain 
stupid", we can probably all agree that the Secretary would be acting 
improperly, despite his/her constitutional power to decide the shape of 
votes. So "final decision on the form of ballot(s)" is not some limitless 
purview. And since the constitution explicitly grants developers broad 
powers over defining documents, issuing statements, etc. (but not the 
Secretary) it seems that the most sound interpretation of the constitution 
is that the Secretary is not the DFSG arbiter, and should allow matters of 
interpretation of the DFSG to be settled by simple vote amongst the 
developers. This means refraining from imposing supermajorities on disputes 
over DFSG interpretation, despite strong personal views.

Christopher Martin


pgpfVqMz9VxgU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:36, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> The phrase you used was "personal whim."
>
> Whose judgment should he use instead?

No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote 
by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the 
very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation).

> He may interpret the Constitution to require that implicit
> modifications of Foundation Documents require 3:1 just as explicit
> ones do.  This is hardly a radical stretch.

Of course the constitution wants foundation documents to require 3:1. 
Everyone knows that. No one is denying that.

> And, he must determine for every resolution whether it is a
> modification of a Foundation Document.  He cannot shirk this
> responsibility; he must determine, and then issue the ballot.

No, he must not make any such determination in cases where the DFSG is in 
dispute. You keep asserting that, while ignoring the arguments I make as to 
_why_. He would not be shirking his duty, since my whole point is that he 
does not have that duty. He must not prejudge issues of DFSG 
interpretation; that is not his job.

> The Constitution is silent on who interprets the DFSG.

It's not brutally explicit, but it does seem to grant the power to the 
developers, though GRs and elections. Certainly not the Secretary.

> Issuing the ballot with a majority requirement when, in his opinion,
> the resolution effects a change to the DFSG, is a violation of the
> Constitution.

No, because his opinion on the DFSG is constitutionally irrelevant, and has 
no standing, and therefore should not be exercised.

> > The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the
> > Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping
> > their authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL
> > because they decided that they didn't like it anymore, since
> > longstanding consensus allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by
> > a vote).
>
> It is however ultimately *their* determination.  Yes, they should
> attend to consensus.  But they are not beholden to it.

Well, they could ignore it at every possible opportunity, and force the 
developers to override them with a vote for each and every NEW package in 
the queue. But then Debian would cease to function.

> I would note that Manoj explicitly requested comment here.  He was
> (and I presume, is) quite happy to receive people's opinions about the
> proper form of the ballot.
>
> > The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard
> > interpretations, etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue
> > of interpretation that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their
> > own views by setting 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide
> > the matter. To impose a 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the
> > very issue being voted upon.
>
> It is the *Constitution* which imposes the 3:1 requirement on changes
> to the Foundation Documents.  It is the Secretary's job to give effect
> to that provision by creating correct ballots.

Your arguments seem to presuppose that DFSG-freeness is always obvious. But 
what is "correct" might be disputed. If the issue is whether or not 
something does violate the DFSG, then the Secretary should not decide/warp 
the issue ahead of the actual vote, even if he personally dislikes the 
resulting ballot.

> If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a
> recission or modification of a Foundation Document.  The text of the
> DFSG shall remain intact just as is.  The main Debian archive may now
> include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute,
> whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
> saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?

Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly 
fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's 
protection, believe it or not.

> > Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should
> > refuse to interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers
> > themselves decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from
> > ourselves.
>
> How can he refuse?  If he refuses to interpret it, then he cannot
> assign the correct victory margin *AT ALL*.  If he says "this requires
> a majority" then that *is* a determination that the resolution does
> not modify the DFSG.  He cannot avoid making that determination.

A simple majority is obviously the default margin of victory for a vote.

> > No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote
> > and prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the
> > acceptability of the proposal.
>
> How can he say "because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a
> majority" without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG?

A simple majority is the default, and so allowing the defaul

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment
> > concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for
> > that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities
> > (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG)
> > is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is
> > quite irrelevant.
>
> The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else.  The Constitution
> never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either.

There is a difference between implementing the accepted interpretation of 
the DFSG (i.e. the ftpmaster task) and deciding on what is the correct 
interpretation (the task of the developers as a whole, not the Secretary, 
and not the ftpmasters either, though they could start doing so, but would 
be subject to being overruled by the developers).

> The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot

We're going in circles. Of course we want the Secretary to issue a correct 
ballot. But if the vote is to decide on DFSG interpretation, then the whole 
dispute is over what sorts of things are acceptable and unacceptable, 
correct and incorrect. And _that_ is not for the Secretary to decide, since 
then we might as well skip the vote and just ask the Secretary to tell us 
how the DFSG is correctly interpreted.

> ; it his his determination 
> what correctness is in each and every case using the voting
> procedure.  For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to
> have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the
> DFSG.  He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the
> other.

A simple majority is clearly the default position, and the Secretary should 
not overrule that (in cases of DFSG interpretation).

Christopher Martin


pgpwgDrx1Rbq6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Still, I have no confidence at this point.  I am quite sure that, even
> if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
> another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
> long.

Before or after the next renaming of "creationism", I wonder?

-- 
Glenn Maynard


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
> resolution procedure are inappropriate.  

Perhaps you have misunderstood me because I was unclear.

I am not trying to suppress anything.  I am concerned that the
procedure is being used abusively, and that at least some participants
in these discussions are being dishonorable.

We were told after the drop non-free resolution failed that it would
be abusive and unfair and illegitimate to proceed to reintroduce the
same topic over and over again.  I don't know where that fear came
from, but there it was; some people were concerned that it would be
brought up again and again.  I believe this is, in substance, what is
happening here.

> And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote
> on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was
> representative.  Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about
> issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian,
> which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have
> their views represented as an option on the ballot.

This is quite a fair point, and thank you for it.

Still, I have no confidence at this point.  I am quite sure that, even
if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see
another GR with the effect "keep GFDL'd documentation in main" before
long.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
> determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.

No, I'm not.  I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he
must make a determination as best as he can.  

> The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
> contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
> whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
> that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.

No.  This is incorrect.  The developers surely have the right to
declare what the DFSG means; I have never challenged that.

However, this does not specify by what majority they must act.  The
developers have the right to rescind the DFSG or close down the
Project if they want, but this does not mean that a mere majority is
sufficient to take those steps.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
>> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
>> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
>> > decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than
>> > for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the
>> > DFSG, at his or her personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.
>>
>> So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim?
>
> It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but 
> that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to 
> do so, however carefully.

The phrase you used was "personal whim."

Whose judgment should he use instead?  

He may interpret the Constitution to require that implicit
modifications of Foundation Documents require 3:1 just as explicit
ones do.  This is hardly a radical stretch.

And, he must determine for every resolution whether it is a
modification of a Foundation Document.  He cannot shirk this
responsibility; he must determine, and then issue the ballot.

If he issues a ballot that says "this requires a majority" when it
works a modification of a Foundation Document, then he has been remiss
in his duties.  He has indeed then violated the Constitution.  There
is no way for him to "not decide", which seems to be what you think he
should do.

> Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of 
> the constitution.

Read the above, please.

> No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous 
> posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their 
> job to ensure a "proper ballot" if ensuring a proper ballot would require 
> them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG 
> interpretation. 

The Constitution is silent on who interprets the DFSG.  It follows
that it is the job of every developer in the course of their duties to
do so to the best of their ability.  In no way have I suggested that
Manoj's interpretation of the DFSG should control ftpmaster, for
example.  It controls his execution of his duties, and nothing more.
But also, nothing less.

Issuing the ballot with a majority requirement when, in his opinion,
the resolution effects a change to the DFSG, is a violation of the
Constitution. 

> The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the 
> Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their 
> authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they 
> decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus 
> allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote).

It is however ultimately *their* determination.  Yes, they should
attend to consensus.  But they are not beholden to it.

I would note that Manoj explicitly requested comment here.  He was
(and I presume, is) quite happy to receive people's opinions about the
proper form of the ballot.

> The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations,  
> etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation 
> that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 
> 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 
> 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon.

It is the *Constitution* which imposes the 3:1 requirement on changes
to the Foundation Documents.  It is the Secretary's job to give effect
to that provision by creating correct ballots.

If I propose a resolution that says "This resolution is not a
recission or modification of a Foundation Document.  The text of the
DFSG shall remain intact just as is.  The main Debian archive may now
include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute,
whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not," are you seriously
saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote?

> Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to 
> interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves 
> decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves.

How can he refuse?  If he refuses to interpret it, then he cannot
assign the correct victory margin *AT ALL*.  If he says "this requires
a majority" then that *is* a determination that the resolution does
not modify the DFSG.  He cannot avoid making that determination.

> No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and 
> prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of 
> the proposal.

How can he say "because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a
majority" without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> > On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> >> honorable, this is not true of everyone.  Now that this is the *third*
> >> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
> >> suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply
> >> unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the
> >> project forever.  This is not honorable behavior.

> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.

> What about the second vote?  How many votes do you need to lose,
> before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and
> over again?

Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard
resolution procedure are inappropriate.  The constitution says that any K
developers have the right to bring a resolution before the project for
consideration.  While I think there are cases where using a GR to override a
decision is unwise and divisive, I don't think that a group of developers
sincerely feeling that a previous vote has gone awry are one of those cases.
If you think that they're *wrong* about whether these changes represent a
majority opinion in the project, why spend any effort at all arguing on the
mailing list?  All you really need to do is cast your vote against the GR
when it comes to vote.  OTOH, maybe you don't think they're a vocal
minority; maybe you think that they're genuinely a majority, or that their
arguments are winning supporters.  In that case, I think you would be better
off arguing the issues instead.  At the very least, I don't think we should
be seeking to disenfranchise such a majority if it does exist.

And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote
on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was
representative.  Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about
issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian,
which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have
their views represented as an option on the ballot.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning 
> the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it 
> follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on 
> the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 
> 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.

The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else.  The Constitution
never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either.  

I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said
he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his
duties.  For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it
is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a
3:1 majority.  

For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration
that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document.  He
cannot avoid making that determination.

> The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary 
> overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with 
> that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my 
> complaint.

I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this
way).  I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is
groundless however.

The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination
what correctness is in each and every case using the voting
procedure.  For him to say "this requires a majority" requires him to
have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the
DFSG.  He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the
other.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Nick Phillips]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:

> Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG.  I'm saying that if, in
> the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
> tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
> majority to pass.

> If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
> that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
> the DFSG to that extent.

Unfortunately things are not as clear-cut as you would like to claim.

You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute
determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not.

Initially, we expect this determination to be made by individual
developers, as you have pointed out. Individuals' judgements may be
called into question by ftpmasters, who may ask debian-legal for
comments. If there is no consensus, then we have a vote. We have *no*
higher authority to determine the DFSG-compliance of a license than
such a vote. So your statement is meaningless.

The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of
contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining
whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that
that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so.

I'll refrain from arguing about what might happen in the event of a
contradiction, as it's a pointless distraction at this juncture.



Cheers,


Nick


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> >> > right.
> >>
> >> Quite wrong.  I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
> >> that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
> >
> > But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be
> > set or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret
> > the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily
> > decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than
> > for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the
> > DFSG, at his or her personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.
>
> So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim?

It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but 
that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to 
do so, however carefully.

> > Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an
> > "out" for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by
> > some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little
> > clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least
> > heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG?
>
> I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of
> disagreement.

Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of 
the constitution.

> > Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1
> > _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which
> > contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation
> > document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who
> > gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a
> > clarification/interpretation of a foundation document?
>
> I certainly haven't refused to address it.
>
> The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a
> proper ballot.  It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job.  It is
> just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really
> right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really
> right.  There is no "safe course"; he must make a judgment, and then
> issue the correct ballot.

No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous 
posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their 
job to ensure a "proper ballot" if ensuring a proper ballot would require 
them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG 
interpretation. They would have to suck it up and let the vote go ahead, 
and hope that the common sense of the developers prevailed.

> This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in
> Debian requires it.  For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package
> whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do
> so.

The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the 
Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their 
authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they 
decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus 
allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote).

The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations,  
etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation 
that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 
3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 
3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon.

> > I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary
> > with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't
> > refrain from imposing them and makes a mess.
>
> So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know.

Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to 
interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves 
decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves.

> If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority
> requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the
> amendment does not alter the DFSG.

No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and 
prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of 
the proposal.

Christopher Martin


pgpFlu7i74LRe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:19, Raul Miller wrote:
> Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
> of the DFSG.  So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
> being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
> for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right
> to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote.

To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning 
the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it 
follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on 
the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 
3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant.

You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the 
Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone 
else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the 
constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc. 
That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any 
power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own 
constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the 
constitution. Because that's the only way I can see for getting from "the 
constitution mentions that some votes should require 3:1 supermajorities" 
to "therefore the Secretary must be the constitutionally ordained arbiter 
of DFSG correctness for all votes." And this despite other constitutional 
verbiage that suggests that developers have that power. Huh.

> > Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or
> > elections, have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw
> > nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents
> > describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free
> > software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software
> > licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include
> > position statements about issues of the day." The GFDL sounds like an
> > "issue of the day" to me.
>
> Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the
> developers follow when doing these things.
>
> And we're following those procedures.
>
> So where's the problem?

The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary 
overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with 
that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my 
complaint.

Christopher Martin


pgpsvMFCwp83A.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
>> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
>> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.
>
> Actually, it was mostly about firmware, see
>
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html

Thank you for the correction.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit :
> > On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > > old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
> people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be
> free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its
> license written by hordes of monkeys.

See the mail in -private entitled "social contract and documentation
policy" dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -, and realise that the GFDL came
out three years later in March 2000.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
> > When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> > trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> > move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> > "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> > don't trust the first group.
> Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary?

Of course it should be. That's why I said it generally.

> > As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> > documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.
> Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue.  It doesn't
> use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
> does use seems more than adequate.

It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't
say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're
interpreted. Of course, not saying anything about it leaves the matter up
to interpretation, at least to some extent, and the secretary's certainly
empowered to do that, both effectively (by controlling the way votes are
taken) and formally (by 7.1(3)).

I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case,
but it's his choice. As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't
think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received
more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above "Further
Discussion", and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want
to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking
each other.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we
>  can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion  period is over,
>  which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb
>  25th.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as per my mail:

> > The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on the
> > 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a call for
> > a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from the 26th of
> > January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4).

4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been varied)
A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the time 
  (a) the last formal amendment was accepted
  (b) the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been
  proposed and accepted

   A.1(1): "amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored",
   so there were three formal amendments, Adeodato's first, Anton's,
   and Adeodato's second.
   A.1(2): "A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer",
   which didn't happen for any of these, so there were no formal 
amendments
   that have been proposed and accepted, so (b) holds

   The whole resolution was proposed on 11th Jan 2006 21:53:43 +1000, and
   received sufficient sponsors at 12th Jan 2006 09:59:20 +.

So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006 09:59:20
+, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was posted 1st January,
we've already been discussing this for six weeks, so I don't think
there's any need for another two weeks on this.

> Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a
>  proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period.

That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases without the
discussion period restarting.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.

Actually, it was mostly about firmware, see

   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set
> or not?

The constitution says:

"... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's -
see 7.1(1),
7.1(3) and A.3(4)."

I think that's pretty clear.

Also, you might want to read the references it lists.

I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his
powers in any way, shape or form.

--
Raul

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of
> deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG,
> since the DFSG is not the constitution.

"Repeatedly asserts"?  I think, if you check my assertion, it included
a direct reference to the text of the constitution that I was referring
to.

If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could say specifically what it
is about what I wrote which conflicts with that part of the constitution?

Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part
of the DFSG.  So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation
being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis
for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right
to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote.

> Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections,
> have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy
> documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of
> the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and
> nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian
> software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues
> of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the
developers follow when doing these things.

And we're following those procedures.

So where's the problem?

--
Raul

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
>> > right.
>>
>> Quite wrong.  I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
>> that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.
>
> But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set 
> or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, 
> not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make 
> the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because 
> of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her 
> personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.

So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim?

Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG.  I'm saying that if, in
the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is
tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1
majority to pass.

> Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an "out" for 
> the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other 
> delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the 
> Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the 
> useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG?

I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of
disagreement.

> Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ 
> to be required when a resolution is put forth which 
> contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. 
> The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide 
> what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a 
> clarification/interpretation of a foundation document?

I certainly haven't refused to address it.

The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a
proper ballot.  It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job.  It is
just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really
right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really
right.  There is no "safe course"; he must make a judgment, and then
issue the correct ballot.

This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in
Debian requires it.  For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package
whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do
so.  They do not need to wait for a ballot; they do not have to defer
to the maintainer who uploaded it.  It is their job to make this
determination in installing packages into the archive.

Likewise, I say, it is the Secretary's job to do so when preparing
ballots for voting.

> I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with 
> extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from 
> imposing them and makes a mess.

So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know.

>> So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not
>> DFSG-compliant.
>
> No, that is NOT the question.

If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare
that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of
the DFSG to that extent.

> Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional 
> way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the 
> developers. "The Secretary has no choice" is backwards. The Secretary does 
> in fact have no choice, as you say, but it is not to impose his/her own 
> view of the DFSG on everyone else, but to refrain from doing so. The 
> Secretary is not some Prince of Reason appointed to guard the DFSG. That is 
> not in the constitution.

If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority
requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the
amendment does not alter the DFSG.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> > right.
>
> Quite wrong.  I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
> that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.

But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set 
or not? You can't say "the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, 
not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make 
the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because 
of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her 
personal whim." That's obviously ludicrous.

> > Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary
> > this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts,
> > a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in
> > cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret
> > the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution.
>
> I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to "a minor power...in
> cases of deadlock."  What it says is "adjudicates any disputes about
> interpretation of the constitution."

DFSG != constitution

Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an "out" for 
the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other 
delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the 
Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the 
useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG?

> > Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or
> > elections, have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw
> > nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents
> > describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free
> > software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software
> > licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include
> > position statements about issues of the day." The GFDL sounds like an
> > "issue of the day" to me.
>
> Right.
>
> So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the
> DFSG?  If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote.  If it doesn't, then
> it doesn't.  It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the
> Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a
> Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document.

Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ 
to be required when a resolution is put forth which 
contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. 
The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide 
what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a 
clarification/interpretation of a foundation document?

> Would a GR that said "Pine hereby passes the DFSG" be ok?  How about
> one that said "Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may
> be added to the main Debian archive."?  Neither of those explicitly
> revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would
> require a 3:1 vote.  And removing the "Even though the DSG and the SC
> say otherwise" cannot possibly affect the matter.

Yes, I would agree with you that such amendments _should_ have to meet the 
3:1 requirement to pass. But I refuse to grant the Secretary the power to 
decide this. If a vote is proposed without it, and it gets the requisite 
seconds, etc. then it should be voted upon without it. If a majority of 
developers are really so dumb as to vote for such silly things, then there 
is no hope for the Project anyway, and not you, nor the Secretary, will be 
able to save it. This isn't perfect, I'll admit, but there is no more 
correct, more legitimate way to settle issues of interpretation than by 
majority vote, under the current constitution.

I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with 
extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from 
imposing them and makes a mess (despite my disagreements with Manoj, I'm 
not at all suggesting that he's this bad; I'm speaking hypothetically). 
Unless someone wants to propose a new "Foundation Document Interpretation 
Board" of annually elected developers to handle such issues, majority votes 
it must be (as infrequently as possible).

> So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not
> DFSG-compliant.

No, that is NOT the question.

> And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare 
> it otherwise.  If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to
> say so.  The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination;
> he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning
> percentage.  There just isn't any other way.

Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional 
way, which happens to be by respecting the will and comm

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Surely it does.  People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
>> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
>> deceived.

> Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.

No, I do not agree.  I have said nothing of the kind.

>> Were you "deceived" by the 2003 amendment?  
> No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste
> and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the
> subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just
> like in the precedent GR.

Then why did you not alert people to the "deception"?  Surely you
realized how dangerous it was, voted against it, and warned other
people of this "deception", right?

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that
> right. 

Quite wrong.  I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right
that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote.

> Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this 
> extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor 
> power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of 
> deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, 
> since the DFSG is not the constitution.

I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to "a minor power...in
cases of deadlock."  What it says is "adjudicates any disputes about
interpretation of the constitution."

> Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, 
> have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy 
> documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of 
> the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and 
> nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian 
> software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues 
> of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Right.

So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the
DFSG?  If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote.  If it doesn't, then
it doesn't.  It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the
Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a
Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document.

Would a GR that said "Pine hereby passes the DFSG" be ok?  How about
one that said "Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may
be added to the main Debian archive."?  Neither of those explicitly
revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would
require a 3:1 vote.  And removing the "Even though the DSG and the SC
say otherwise" cannot possibly affect the matter.

So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not
DFSG-compliant.  And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare
it otherwise.  If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to
say so.  The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination;
he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning
percentage.  There just isn't any other way.

If the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant, then a majority *cannot* declare it
so, because it would be reversing the DFSG itself (just as if it said
"notwithstanding the DFSG and the SC, pine is hereby allowed into
main").  

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Surely it does.  People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
> to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
> deceived.
Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful.

> Were you "deceived" by the 2003 amendment?  
No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste
and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the
subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just
like in the precedent GR.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

>> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
>> changes?"

> I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.

Surely it does.  People who say "I was deceived; and I didn't bother
to take elementary steps to avoid deception" have chosen to be
deceived.

People who vote on the basis of subject lines and one-line
descriptions deserve whatever they get.  I think, rather, that they
can be trusted to either take an interest or not, but if they choose
not to, then to honorably and decently say "oops, I guess I should pay
more attention in the future."

Were you "deceived" by the 2003 amendment?  



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> > accept non-free documentation into main.

>> How is this relevant?

> It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what "software" is
> in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not "editorial".

And how is this relevant?  Please see the subject line.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> > majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> > allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> > prerogative.
>
> Ah, well, they do have that right.  All I'm saying is that when their
> "interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
> of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.

But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. The 
Secretary does, because he or she can judge whether something is a matter 
of interpretation or a modification. He/she therefore can arbitrarily 
decide what constitutes a legimitate and an illegitimate interpretation of 
the DFSG. Therefore, you willingly grant the Secretary the power to 
interpret the DFSG. The developers can only interpret the DFSG within the 
range allowed by the Secretary, or face the 3:1 obstacle.

And indeed, our current Secretary refuses to countenance the idea that the 
GFDL being free is an acceptable interpretation. I happen to agree - I 
believe that only without invariant sections is the GFDL Free - but I don't 
think it's up to Manoj to tell us this, so I'm upset at the 3:1 
requirement.

Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this 
extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor 
power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of 
deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, 
since the DFSG is not the constitution.

Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, 
have the power to "issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy 
documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of 
the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and 
nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian 
software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues 
of the day." The GFDL sounds like an "issue of the day" to me.

Christopher Martin


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> > interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> > accept non-free documentation into main.
> How is this relevant?
It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what "software" is
in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not "editorial".

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I
> > Yes, multiple people did. HTH.
> Who?  I can't recall any.  Can you provide pointers?
Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message.

> What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
> changes?"
I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough
to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time
and so I suppose you could be partially excused.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> > to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> > old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
> This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> accept non-free documentation into main.

Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when
people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be
free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its
license written by hordes of monkeys.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Laurent Fousse]

* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:18:59PM +0200]:
> > > The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this
> > > freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds
> > > this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian.
> > 
> > The problem with this second notion is that "practical purposes" is
> > ill-defined.
> 
> What do you mean by "ill-defined"?

I mean that what you mean by "practical purposes" is not necessarily
the same as what I do. Most objections to the GFDL have been backed up
by what the objectors to the GFDL consider practical purposes. I think
that what purposes I consider practical is key to define what I
consider free, and that "all the freedom we need for practical
purposes" is a mere restatement of the obvious.

Hope I made it clearer now. It seems to me I'm more or less
paraphrasing things that have already been said here, so I'll stop
now.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I

> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.

Who?  I can't recall any.  Can you provide pointers?

What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
changes?"


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.

> This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> accept non-free documentation into main.

How is this relevant?



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to 
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the 
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. 
> Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves.

No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint.

> I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict 
> majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be 
> allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their 
> prerogative.

Ah, well, they do have that right.  All I'm saying is that when their
"interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I
Yes, multiple people did. HTH.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
accept non-free documentation into main.

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> > between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> > the foundation documents".
>
> First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation
> documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
> supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
> mess.

That would be a moot point, not a contradiction.

> Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference
> between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict
> them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't.

This can only be true where appearances are deceiving.

--
Raul

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 9 Feb 2006, Anton Zinoviev spake thusly:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>>
>> [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases
>> [3:1]
>
> I need to correct this.  The title for my proposal is
>
> [   ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG

Noted.

> First, the whole text of my proposal talks entirely about the
> current DFSG.
>
> Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
> release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main.  If my proposal
> wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision
>
Err, that doeds not compute. If the developers decide that the
 GFDL is compatible, then is it not tantamount to overriding gthe
 decision taken? It is not as if the release team can go around doing
 otherwise. The vox populi has power :)

manoj
-- 
One seldom sees a monument to a committee.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Raul Miller]

On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns  wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.

Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary?

If not, why not?

> > If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
> > of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
>
> If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement,
> does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the
> constitution, personally.

This seems to be a moot distinction, given that the constitution says
that the secretary is the judge in disputes about what the constitution
means.  (section 7.1.3)

> As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.

Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue.  It doesn't
use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
does use seems more than adequate.

--
Raul

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> > subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> > incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with
> > their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret
> > traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for
> > trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing.
>
> Please don't put words in my mouth.  I haven't called anyone evil,
> stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone
> else such things in this debate.  Well, Craig has.  He's on your side,
> right?

Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to 
draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the 
viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. 
Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves.

> Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority
> from changing the foundation documents.  If it means anything, it
> means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a
> question.

You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a foundation 
document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides what is and is not 
a contradiction or change to the foundation documents and so needs 3:1? 
You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and I think the developers should. 
Because in the end, if the developers go completely mad and decide that 
EVERYTHING IS DFSG FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just 
elect a like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant, 
hold another vote... The point is, you either trust the developers to be 
sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone who agrees with 
you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't accept that.

And it is quite possible for the developers to want to change/suspend the 
foundation documents, while being perfectly aware of what they're doing. 
Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the "editorial changes" until 
post-Sarge. See, the system can work.

> Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely
> those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive.  In this way,
> the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated.  Ah,
> now it turns out that this works both ways.  Suddenly we hear calls
> for strict majoritarianism.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict 
majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be 
allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their 
prerogative.

Christopher Martin


pgpEKvlqYVg5L.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Peter Samuelson]

[Christopher Martin]
> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
> agree with them.

And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR
2004-03 being "deceptive".  (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity
in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.)  Either astounding or
depressing.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we
 can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion  period is over,
 which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb
 25th.

Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a
 proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period.

manoj
-- 
Usage: fortune -P [-f] -a [xsz] Q: file [rKe9] -v6[+] file1 ...
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.

Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to
build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an
implicit grant of permission?

There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the
above example is absurd, IMHO.

Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > I do not place limitations on "various needs".  Any modification that
>> > is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
>> > desirable.
>> 
>> So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
>> many modifications which serve practical purposes.
>
> Even if your assertion is true the following is also true: The
> prohibition to remove the invariant sections doesn't prevent
> modifications which are necessary for practical purposes, except for
> modifications that are prohibited by other free licenses also.

It does prohibit some modifications which are useful.

Geez, reference cards.  Useful!  Docstrings.  Useful!  Not prohibited
by other free licenses!  Wow!


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with them.
>
> And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR
> 2004-03 being "deceptive".  (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity
> in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.)  Either astounding or
> depressing.

Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"?  I
wonder.  I don't recall anyone saying that.  This makes the deception
claim all the worse.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
>> honorable, this is not true of everyone.  Now that this is the *third*
>> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
>> suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply
>> unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the
>> project forever.  This is not honorable behavior.

> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

What about the second vote?  How many votes do you need to lose,
before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and
over again?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two 
> votes were not about the GFDL. 

Why did we take the second vote?

Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on 
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who 
> should be trusted? 

So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small 
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem 
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their 
> DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to 
> Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency 
> without the guts to admit what they're doing. 

Please don't put words in my mouth.  I haven't called anyone evil,
stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone
else such things in this debate.  Well, Craig has.  He's on your side,
right?

> Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to
> decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. 

If a mere majority resolution can declare what the foundation
documents mean, then the requirement of a supermajority is
meaningless.

Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority
from changing the foundation documents.  If it means anything, it
means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a
question.  

Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely
those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive.  In this way,
the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated.  Ah,
now it turns out that this works both ways.  Suddenly we hear calls
for strict majoritarianism.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I do not place limitations on "various needs".  Any modification that
> > is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
> > desirable.
> 
> So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
> many modifications which serve practical purposes.

Even if your assertion is true the following is also true: The
prohibition to remove the invariant sections doesn't prevent
modifications which are necessary for practical purposes, except for
modifications that are prohibited by other free licenses also.

We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example
you are welcome to share it with us. :-)

Anton Zinoviev


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a
écrit :
> > Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
> > editorial !
> 
> A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
> 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the
> "editorial" one).

This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote
> > on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders,
> > then who should be trusted?
>
> So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?

No, because the developers might want at some point to modify/override a 
foundation document, while acknowledging that they are doing so (i.e. they 
do not view it as an issue of interpretation, but expediency, or a need to 
adapt to changing circumstances, etc.). That would certainly require 3:1.

Christopher Martin


pgpPQxq7tE1cU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Christopher Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The
> > last two votes were not about the GFDL.
>
> Why did we take the second vote?
>
> Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
> required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
> was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.

That was _one_ reason people wanted to delay implementing it, yes, but that 
doesn't mean that the resolution implicitly endorsed the unfreeness of the 
GFDL. People may have voted to delay the changes because they agreed with 
their general spirit, but didn't want to engage in hashing out their full 
implications right before Sarge, whether they thought the GFDL fine or not; 
better simply to postpone the whole mess until latter. Now, we're having 
that debate, and a vote to clarify the ramifications of the editorial 
changes. I see no repitition, no refusal to accept what has been settled.

What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small 
subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem 
incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their 
DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to 
Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency 
without the guts to admit what they're doing. Because nobody could _really_ 
believe that the GFDL is OK. It's just inconceivable! Thus the viewpoint 
that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation 
documents mean makes perfect sense. We're just a herd of dangerous idiots 
and renegades. Far safer to endow a known right-thinking (and for all 
intents and purposes permanent) official with the necessary power to keep 
Debian pure and tell the developers what they should think...

Yes, a few people are still publically bitter about the way the editorial 
changes were handled, but so what. Just ignore them. They're not calling 
for a vote to overturn the editorial changes. As it turns out, a number of 
people who agreed with the editorial changes don't believe that it follows 
from them that the GFDL should be removed, or that the GFDL without 
invariant sections should be removed. We're now trying to assert that view, 
and a vote will decide whether we're a minority or not.

Christopher Martin


pgpw5iVjc0IZ8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

>   Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free  [yes/no]
>   If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
>   Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we've had in the votes to date.

This way we can postpone removing the non-free DFSG docs forever!  We
can just always think of a "new" issue to raise.  I find this
dishonorable.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> Anthony Towns  writes:
>> > In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
>> > suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
>> > felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
>> > DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong.
>> > Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
>> > enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
>> > contract or DFSG.
>> It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.

They can be trusted not to lie.  They cannot be trusted never to make
a mistake.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I do not place limitations on "various needs".  Any modification that
> is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
> desirable.

So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents
many modifications which serve practical purposes.

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >  If the project secretary decides
> > that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would
> > mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project
> > that our notion of "free software" differs from the notion of FSF.
> This is not correct.
> 
> The FSF, through RMS, has officially claimed that documentation does
> not need the same freedoms as programs, and furthermore has stated
> that the GFDL is not a free software license (they appear to be
> using "software" to mean "programs").

No, this is not correct.  As most people FSF is using "software" to
mean "programs".  This does not mean that FSF doesn't support the
freedoms of the users to 

1. read the documentation freely without any controll by technical
   means (DRM).

2. to change the documentation to suit their needs

3. to copy and distribute the documentation

4. to improve the documentation and to release the improvements to the
   public, so that the whole community benefits

You see that these are pretty much the same freedoms as the freedoms
on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Anton Zinoviev


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> * Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]:
> > During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became
> > clear there are two completely different notions of "freedom" among
> > us.
> > 
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > do whatever we want with it.
> 
> I don't think any debian developer seriously holds that opinion.

Neither did I but I was proved wrong.  It was insisted many times in
this list that the text of DFSG ("must allow modifications") means
"must allow arbitrary modifications".

> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
> > 
> > The strong point of the first notion of freedom is that in every
> > person there is a natural desire to be able to do whatever he wants.
> > 
> > The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this
> > freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds
> > this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian.
> 
> The problem with this second notion is that "practical purposes" is
> ill-defined.

What do you mean by "ill-defined"?

Anton Zinoviev


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > do whatever we want with it.
> >
> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
> 
> This is a false dilemma, of course.
> 
> Moreover, if by "various needs" you mean an unspecified list, then
> these are the same.  If you mean some specified list, then it is clear
> no such list exists at present in Debian, for you cannot point to any
> record of what is on the list and what is not.

I do not place limitations on "various needs".  Any modification that
is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is
desirable.
 
> What thoroughly disgusts me here is the following history:
> 
> [ .. long history reminder skipped ... ]

If you call me "beer" I am going to accept this as personal insult.
You can see from the voting archives that I voted for the complete
removal of non-free.  You can also see that the main "toad" (the one
who proposed to keep non-free) is also the author of the current
proposal that GFDL is non-free.  So your analogy is not well-founded.

> So, Anton, the developers *have*, in fact, voted on this very question
> twice already.  Give it a rest.

They have not.

Anton Zinoviev


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> > The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do
> > whatever we want with it.
> 
> > The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to
> > adapt it to various needs and to improve it.
> 
> It would probably be a good idea if you would not try to characterize
> other people's positions that you don't agree with, since you are mostly
> just getting them wrong.  For example, I agree more with the latter
> definition than the former, but I think the GFDL is clearly non-free.

This doesn't change the fact that there are people who have wrote many
times in this list that the DFSG text "must allow modifications"
should be interpreted as "must allow arbitrary modifications".

Yes, there are people like you who agree with the latter definition
and consider GFDL non-free.  Thats why I tried to show whenever I
could why GFDL doesn't obstruct us to adapt the documents or to
improve them.  See for example
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html

Anton Zinoviev


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Anton Zinoviev]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> [   ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]

I need to correct this.  The title for my proposal is

[   ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG

First, the whole text of my proposal talks entirely about the current
DFSG.

Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the
release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main.  If my proposal
wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision

Anton Zinoviev


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DFSG4 and combined works

[Frank Küster]

Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> What makes this entirely disgusting, is that the bees have extremely
> large overlap with the toads; the wasps with the frogs.

I'm not sure about it, of course just because I'm a toad and a wasp.  

And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this
"GFDL is non-free" hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our
non-free section, for ever?

I'm going to do something sensible now,

Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Adam D. Barratt]

"Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, Thursday, February 09, 2006
8:08 AM
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
>>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional

> shouldn't this line end like "or _under_ any of the traditional"?

>>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.

Nope, the lack of a second "under" is fine (in en_GB, at least).

The use of license as both a noun and a verb, otoh, is an en_USism.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote:
[...]
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
> 
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
> 
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>  conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>  allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>  documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>  "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
> 
>  As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>  we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>  unmodifiable content.
> 
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>  GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>  do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>  Guidelines.
> 
>  This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>  Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>  permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>  the main component of our distribution.
> 
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>  trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>  it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>  means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
> 
>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional

shouldn't this line end like "or _under_ any of the traditional"?

>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.

That being said, I second this proposal (with or without that fix).
Originally I thought the DRM and transparent requirements were
problematic, but the discussion in the thread sparked by Anton's
amendment has convinced me that these are nothing more than just
technicalities, with no serious real-life impact. The same, however,
cannot be said about invariant sections.

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> > developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> > it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> > agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
> > supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
> > mess.
> 
> Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot
> be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring "there is no
> contradiction".  

In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single
person declaring "there is a contradiction here". Even if that single
person, by constitutional decree, is the one who "Adjudicates any
disputes about interpretation of the constitution" (note, the
constitution--not the DFSG, which is a "foundation document" but not the
same thing as the constitution).

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Christopher Martin]

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
> of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?
>
> I think that it is possible for people to disagree about such a
> question, and it seems crazy to me to say that anytime they disagree,
> it can be settled by majority vote.

A vote after extensive public debate, I might add.

If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on 
such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who 
should be trusted? Apparently you think our Secretary is up to the task. 
But if in some hypothetical distant future Debian were to acquire a 
Secretary with a rather different interpretation of the DFSG - say one 
radically different from the interpretation which you yourself believe to 
be so utterly self-evident - would you be quite so happy then?

Because ultimately this is a question of Debian's constitution, and of 
legitimacy. The constitution does not endow the Secretary with the power to 
interpret the DFSG. It does grant the Secretary limited power to adjudicate 
in small disputes of constitutional interpretation, but the DFSG is not the 
constitution. I think it wholly appropriate that when there is a dispute 
over DFSG interpretation of major importance the developers should vote. I 
believe this to be in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the 
constitution. While I may not always agree with the decision that results 
from a vote, I respect it far more than an Olympian decree.

> Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
> honorable, this is not true of everyone.  Now that this is the *third*
> time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question

I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two 
votes were not about the GFDL. They were about changes to our foundation 
documents. You believe them to have been about the GFDL only because, 
again, you believe that the GFDL's unfreeness follows with inescapable 
obviousness from those changes, but that is clearly not a view which 
everyone holds. That some people had the GFDL in mind when crafting the 
"editorial changes" is their problem, not the Project's problem.

> I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply
> unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the
> project forever.  This is not honorable behavior.

No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I take 
umbrage at your insinuations.

If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of 
settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People 
respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them.

Christopher Martin


pgpdrQeDtU2pI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Lars Wirzenius]

to, 2006-02-09 kello 15:13 +0100, Xavier Roche kirjoitti:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> > Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> > they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.
> 
> No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive
> wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers.

Please stop abusing that horse. We're running out of glue.

-- 
Fundamental truth #2: Attitude is usually more important than skills.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[MJ Ray]

Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote:
> > I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.
> 
> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
[...]

Stallman is amazingly arbitrary and illogical about manuals and
invariant sections, ignoring Moglen's advice that we can't rely on
distinguishing bitstreams for deciding what freedoms are important.
I welcome debian's consistent approach: if it's in main, it should
follow the DFSG (at least in spirit as far as possible), no matter
what sort of software it is (programs, manuals, and so on).
Stallman tries to redefine software=programs and many follow.

It's not about "holier than Stallman" but about what we understand
as software. Just programs for PCs, programs for everything (inc.
firmware), or computerised creative work in general?
Software is a wider group than programs: if you know esperanto,
software is programaroj rather than programoj. Unfortunately,
similar arguments seem to happen for many languages, including
French: do programme and logiciel differ for computers?

The FSF promotion of the FDL looks like a fairly obvious example of
working against FSF's aim, but I don't know their precise objective.
FDL looks like a fairly cynical attempt to create an adware licence
acceptable to legacy dead-tree publishers and few of them seem to use
it. Someone mentioned the "encyclopedia problem" where including an
invariant section on a topic prevents text being reused in a manual
about that topic: that's just one of the more obvious problems.

I believe the debates about program copyrights, computer-stored music,
video and so on are essentially the same. The same freedoms fit.

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Xavier Roche]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
> Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
> they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.

No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive
wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
> 
> Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
> editorial !

A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the
"editorial" one).

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Christoph Berg]

Re: Adeodato Simó in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---8<---
> 
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
> 
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
> 
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>  conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>  allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>  documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>  "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
> 
>  As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>  we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>  unmodifiable content.
> 
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>  GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>  do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>  Guidelines.
> 
>  This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>  Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>  permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>  the main component of our distribution.
> 
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>  trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>  it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>  means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
> 
>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
> 
> --->8---

Seconded.

Christoph
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> > tought about this.
> 
> The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.  This is a

A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you
are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists,
only.

> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.

Then do so.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Wesley J. Landaker]

I second the amendment quoted below.

On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Hello,
>
>   After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of
>   discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In
>   a nutshell, this is what happened:
>
> - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the
>   time, I wrote the amendment from a "Position Statement" point of
>   view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being
>   particularly clear on the internals of such actions.
>
> - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a
>   modification of the Social Contract ("an exception is being made
>   for some non-free works"), and thus in fulfillment of his duties
>   put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment.
>
> - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording
>   differently, as in "it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet
>   the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main", for which a 1:1
>   majority would be enough.
>
> - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority
>   requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to
>   remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now.
>
>   So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
>   ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
>   my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.
>
>   Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the
>   "Problems of the GFDL" section, which results in a much more brief and
>   straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the
>   invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I
>   don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues,
>   when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere,
>   but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the
>   Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.)
>
>   Thanks.
>
> ---8<---
>
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>  conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>  allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>  documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>  "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
>  As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>  we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>  unmodifiable content.
>
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>  GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>  do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>  Guidelines.
>
>  This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>  Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>  permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>  the main component of our distribution.
>
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>  trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>  it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>  means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
>
> --->8---

-- 
Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094  0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2


pgpVnSJb9DD0U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Martin Michlmayr]

* Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-02-09 06:26]:
> So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
> ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
>  my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.

seconded (again).

> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
> 
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation
> License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
> 
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>  conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>  allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>  documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>  "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
> 
>  As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>  we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>  unmodifiable content.
> 
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>  GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>  do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>  Guidelines.
> 
>  This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>  Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>  permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>  the main component of our distribution.
> 
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>  trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>  it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>  means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
> 
>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.
> 
> --->8---

-- 
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Christopher Martin]

I second the amendment quoted below.

Christopher Martin

On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:26, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License
> =
>
> This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free
> Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation:
>
>   1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2
>  conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it
>  allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in
>  documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as
>  "invariant sections", and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL.
>
>  As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and
>  we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such
>  unmodifiable content.
>
>   2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the
>  GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections
>  do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software
>  Guidelines.
>
>  This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections,
>  Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but
>  permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for
>  the main component of our distribution.
>
>   3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of
>  trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example,
>  it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which
>  means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs.
>
>  For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license
>  their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the
>  same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional
>  free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license.


pgp2RVIWyx89g.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > > previous wording (not everything is software)
> > This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
> 
> Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?

Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before
they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Martijn van Oosterhout]

Hi,

You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following:

2006/2/8, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently
> believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still
> nothing* to say that we can't happily pass GRs that contradict each
> other. It would be foolish, sure, and perhaps reflect poorly on our
> ability to work through these things, but democracies pass laws like
> that the whole time and the courts seem to manage to resolve the
> contradictions.

Debian has no courts to resolve contradictions. No-one has the
authority to rule one way or the other. So we have to decide now,
before the vote, if there is a contradiction or not. Since there is
disagreement here already, we have a difficulty.

There are democracies that work this way. In some countries, courts
cannot rule a law unconstitutional because that is the role of
parliament. If the legislature says it's constitutional, it is.
Contradictions are solved by the legislature. The point being that
courts apply the law, but do not create it.

Back to the issue at hand. Given the only source of authority
considered by debian is the developers themselves, what we need to do
is draft a GR as follows (I think Manoj suggested something like
this):

If there is a belief that a GR contradicts the foundations documents,
this contradiction can be resolved by:

1. The project secretary
2. A majority vote
3. A 3:1 supermajority vote
4. The project leader.
5. The technical committee
6. Debian-legal

The only other possibility is to add a second option to every possible
vote asking developers to say whether they think this requires a
supermajority or not. Or commually binding arbitration system to sort
this out.

I hope this doesn't go that far.

> Note that the alternative to this process is for someone (usually a
> General, it seems) to stand up and tell the parliament not to be so
> damn silly, and to follow his interpretation of the constitution, or
> else. This usually ends badly for all concerned.

We have no courts, so what's the alternative? If we get a
super-majority of developers to say a majority is enough, we're home.
If a majority of developers say a majority is enough, what does that
mean?

Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

Xavier Roche wrote:


I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)


It's not about us being holier than Stallman. It's about Stallman not 
caring that his new license is creating real world problems for everyone 
but the FSF because only the FSF has permission to relicense their stuff.


The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.


   Simon


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Xavier Roche]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> > Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> > previous wording (not everything is software)
> This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".

Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header 
> files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers 
> are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this 
> relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an 
> appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be 
> there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very 
> surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.
Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation?

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit :
> Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
> previous wording (not everything is software)

This has already been voted. And the answer was "no".
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
editorial !
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
   `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Re: GFDL GR, vote please!

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It's probably a little bit hard for folks to find the most important
> bits from the discussion we've had -- since there's been a lot of stuff
> on -vote recently, and a lot more of the discussion has been on -legal
> over the past few years -- so I think it'd be good to have some sort of
> brief Q&A.

Would it be possible that the proposal & amendment submitters could
agree on some text to go along with the call for votes (linked from the
ballot, for example), giving a summary and the key arguments (with links
to threads) for each side?

I think such a brief summary would benefit a lot of people who cannot
spare the time to read all associated text. The Q&A can then either find
hiatusses in this summary and improve it, or if it is held before such
summary is written, can act as a foundation for it (maybe it'll prove
possible to write this summary live during the Q&A).

A key point in getting a popular vote on some issue is, after all,
having the electorate adequately informed about the contents of it. In
Debian it's hardly ever a problem of lacking discussion, but
nevertheless the problem exists in a different form -- lacking an
'exutive' summary of the discussion.

Thank you for considering this,
--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Marco d'Itri]

On Feb 09, Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
> And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
> software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)
The usual suspects from time to time have already been trying to start
an images madness on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you care about Debian, please contribute sane ideas to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-- 
ciao,
Marco


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

GFDL GR, vote please!

[Anthony Towns]

Dear Mr Secretary,

Can we have a vote please, kind sir?

To my knowledge, the proposal and related amendments are:

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proposed by: Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sponsors:
  Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proposed by: Adeodato Simo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sponsors:
  Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Isaac Clerencia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Anibal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Martin F Krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Zephaniah E. Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Proposed by: Anton Zinoviev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sponsors:
  Wesley J. Landaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Xavier Roche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Romain Francoise <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on the
12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a call for
a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from the 26th of
January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4).

I haven't followed all the twists and turns of discussion over the past
few weeks, but as I understand it the original proposal and Adeodato's updated
amendment should require a simple majority, while Anton's amendment will require
a 3:1 supermajority to pass (due to implicitly changing a foundation document).
Based on this, as per A.2(3), I think the form of the ballot should be:

[   ] Choice 1: GFDL is unsuitable for main in all cases
[   ] Choice 2: GFDL is unsuitable for main only when unmodifiable sections 
present
[   ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1]
[   ] Choice 4: Further discussion

It's probably a little bit hard for folks to find the most important
bits from the discussion we've had -- since there's been a lot of stuff
on -vote recently, and a lot more of the discussion has been on -legal
over the past few years -- so I think it'd be good to have some sort of
brief Q&A. I've had a brief chat with Adeodato, and it seems like sometime
Sunday evening UTC might be suitable, with logs (and any further rebuttal)
going up shortly after that. The theory is to give anyone who'd like
a little more information a chance to get that in a concise way before
they vote.

Cheers,
aj


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Xavier Roche]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.

I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)

Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2

[Christian Perrier]

>   So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has
>   ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from
>   my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one.

Seconded.



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Jérôme Marant]

Quoting Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

The only people it made happy are extremists.  See #207932.  This is a
very good example of the silliness it leads to.  You won't be surprised
to see the same fundamentalists as involved in debian-legal crusades.

I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.

--
Jérôme Marant


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Kalle Kivimaa]

Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Debian doesn't have courts.  The closest we've got is debian-legal,

The closest thing to courts we have are DPL, TC, DAM, FTP masters and
the Project Secretary. They have a final decision making power that
effectively resolves any disputes among the developers. debian-legal
is just an advisory board for them.

-- 
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*   PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer   *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract

[Xavier Roche]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

Maybe we could suggest another "editorial change" and revert to the
previous wording (not everything is software)

Uh ?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]