Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hi, Kicad ki...@iridec.com.au writes: it's requested has been replaced with it's strongly encouraged. You can find copies of the modified document here: http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt Regards, David thanks for granting a new license. Thanks for also updating the tutorial to match a newer version of kicad (or was that Phil Hutchinson's work?). -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hello David, thank you for your fast response! You probably have heard of the Debian guidelines about free software (DFSG), they try to define most clearly the frontier between free and non-free software. In real life, things are not either black or white: black and white are united by a continuous series of grey tones. The desert island test is one of the touchstones we use to decide whether something is free or non-free. Here is a simple version of this test: please imagine that you live in a desert island, and that you got the software X, possibly enclosed in a floating bottle. Then you examine the software, and the license says that you must communicate with its author to be authorized to use this software (for any usage which is possible in the case of free software: running it, reading its source, modifying it). If the license compells you to communicate with the author, it is no more DFSG-free. You license still contains one phrase which does not pass this test: If you're considering making a derived work other than a translation, it's requested that you discuss your plans with the current maintainer. The words it's requested are compelling. Hence this tutorial falls into the category of non-DFSG-free documents. Please consider some rewording, for example: s/it's requested that you/you are strongly encouraged to/ For how many people would the modified version of the licence change their behavior? I believe that there are plenty of people who do not take serously the licenses: those won't read your license, either in its compelling form or in its milder form. However which such a rewording, your license would definitely belong to the category of FDSG-free documents. Timo, Berndt, what is your mind about this? Best regards, Georges. Kicad a écrit : Hi, I have deleted the offending line from the current version of the document, which was updated this year. Does this resolve the issue? You can find copies of the modified document here: http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt Kind Regards, David On 15/06/2011 7:24 AM, Georges Khaznadar wrote: Hi, thank you for your fast reply Timo. Let us wait some time for David's response. Best regards,Georges. Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit : Hi, Georges Khaznadargeorges.khazna...@free.fr writes: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source package either. so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad before I noticed the first page banner. -Timo -- Georges KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hi it's requested has been replaced with it's strongly encouraged. You can find copies of the modified document here: http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt Regards, David On 16/06/2011 7:20 AM, Georges Khaznadar wrote: Hello David, thank you for your fast response! You probably have heard of the Debian guidelines about free software (DFSG), they try to define most clearly the frontier between free and non-free software. In real life, things are not either black or white: black and white are united by a continuous series of grey tones. The desert island test is one of the touchstones we use to decide whether something is free or non-free. Here is a simple version of this test: please imagine that you live in a desert island, and that you got the software X, possibly enclosed in a floating bottle. Then you examine the software, and the license says that you must communicate with its author to be authorized to use this software (for any usage which is possible in the case of free software: running it, reading its source, modifying it). If the license compells you to communicate with the author, it is no more DFSG-free. You license still contains one phrase which does not pass this test: If you're considering making a derived work other than a translation, it's requested that you discuss your plans with the current maintainer. The words it's requested are compelling. Hence this tutorial falls into the category of non-DFSG-free documents. Please consider some rewording, for example: s/it's requested that you/you are strongly encouraged to/ For how many people would the modified version of the licence change their behavior? I believe that there are plenty of people who do not take serously the licenses: those won't read your license, either in its compelling form or in its milder form. However which such a rewording, your license would definitely belong to the category of FDSG-free documents. Timo, Berndt, what is your mind about this? Best regards, Georges. Kicad a écrit : Hi, I have deleted the offending line from the current version of the document, which was updated this year. Does this resolve the issue? You can find copies of the modified document here: http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt Kind Regards, David On 15/06/2011 7:24 AM, Georges Khaznadar wrote: Hi, thank you for your fast reply Timo. Let us wait some time for David's response. Best regards, Georges. Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit : Hi, Georges Khaznadargeorges.khazna...@free.fr writes: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source package either. so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad before I noticed the first page banner. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hello Timo, Berndt, David, @Timo, Berndt: thank you for raising this issue. @David: The bugreport raised by Timo and Berndt is available at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630453 @everybody: There are two solution for this issue: - the license of the file kicad-doc/doc/tutorials/en/KiCad Tutorial.odt is changed to become DFSG-free (definition at http://www.debian.org/social_contract) - the license is not modified, and the package must be split into two distinct Debian packages, kicad and kicad-tutorial, the first in the section main, the second one in the section non-free. kicad should Suggest kicad-tutorial. In the second case, I would like to ask Timo and Berndt how to do this split conveniently: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Thank you in advance for your commebts and enlightenments! Best regards, Georges. Debian Bug Tracking System a écrit : Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: severity 630453 serious Bug #630453 [kicad] please clarify licensing of kicad-doc/doc/tutorials/en/KiCad Tutorial.odt in debian/copyright Severity set to 'serious' from 'important' thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 630453: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=630453 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems -- Georges KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hi, Georges Khaznadar georges.khazna...@free.fr writes: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source package either. so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad before I noticed the first page banner. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hi, thank you for your fast reply Timo. Let us wait some time for David's response. Best regards, Georges. Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit : Hi, Georges Khaznadar georges.khazna...@free.fr writes: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source package either. so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad before I noticed the first page banner. -Timo -- Georges KHAZNADAR et Jocelyne FOURNIER 22 rue des mouettes, 59240 Dunkerque France. Téléphone +33 (0)3 28 29 17 70 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#630453: the tutorial's license don't pass the free island test
Hi, I have deleted the offending line from the current version of the document, which was updated this year. Does this resolve the issue? You can find copies of the modified document here: http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.pdf http://www.iridec.com.au/Kicad/KiCad_Tutorial_2011.odt Kind Regards, David On 15/06/2011 7:24 AM, Georges Khaznadar wrote: Hi, thank you for your fast reply Timo. Let us wait some time for David's response. Best regards, Georges. Timo Juhani Lindfors a écrit : Hi, Georges Khaznadargeorges.khazna...@free.fr writes: is it possible to have a single source package, giving two output packages in different sections like main and non-free? my idea is that it is not allowed, this is not possible indeed since non-free stuff is not ok in the source package either. so I should withdraw the conflicting file from kicad's source, to build a package kicad-X.XX+dfsg, and upload a package kicad-tutorial to the NEW queue. Sounds possible. I would rather see the license fixed though. I already started updating the tutorial with screenshots from a more recent kicad before I noticed the first page banner. -Timo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
