Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Ian Jackson wrote: Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copy right ?): ... Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to be non-free. Please read chapter 2 of the new policy manual. This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2: Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they: a. allow distribution of no source code b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source code needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other sources in the Debian distribution). c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used d. allow use only for a trial period e. lack vital functionality f. are installer packages g. fail to meet some other policy requirement Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they: h. disallow distribution for profit i. disallow distribution on certain media j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained k. have any other onerous conditions. My reactions: Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b). It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free and contrib overlap. The word onerous in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with the Debian objective to be a base upon which value-added GNU/Linux distributions can be built. Susan Kleinmann
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Susan G. Kleinmann writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ? ): ... This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2: Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they: a. allow distribution of no source code b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source code needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other sources in the Debian distribution). c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used d. allow use only for a trial period e. lack vital functionality f. are installer packages g. fail to meet some other policy requirement Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they: h. disallow distribution for profit i. disallow distribution on certain media j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained k. have any other onerous conditions. My reactions: Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b). Yes, if you think about them like that. I haven't expressed it quite that way. It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free and contrib overlap. (k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another example of a bad thing in a copyright. non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to. The way I have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must go in non-free. The word onerous in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with the Debian objective to be a base upon which value-added GNU/Linux distributions can be built. I don't understand this at all. Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Ian Jackson writes: Susan G. Kleinmann writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on ly x/copyright ? ): ... This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2: Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they: a. allow distribution of no source code b. allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source cod e needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other source s in the Debian distribution). c. depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used d. allow use only for a trial period e. lack vital functionality f. are installer packages g. fail to meet some other policy requirement Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they: h. disallow distribution for profit i. disallow distribution on certain media j. disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained k. have any other onerous conditions. My reactions: Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b). Yes, if you think about them like that. I haven't expressed it quite that way. It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition (k) differs from condition (g). Without such a distinction, non-free and contrib overlap. (k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another example of a bad thing in a copyright. non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to. The way I have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must go in non-free. The word onerous in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with the Debian objective to be a base upon which value-added GNU/Linux distributions can be built. I don't understand this at all. The above several paragraphs actually echo a common theme. The word onerous is commonly taken to be perjorative; certainly the phrase bad criteria is perjorative. Therefore one interprets the category non-free as perjorative, rather than simply being a statement of fact that copyright restrictions exist. The use of such language is unnecessary and inconsistent with Debian's purported objective of being a base for value-added distributions. To be plain about it, you don't normally go around telling people you think they're bad or their ideas are bad, and then expect to attract them to the notion of using your software. Susan Kleinmann
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?): ... Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to be non-free. Please read chapter 2 of the new policy manual. Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote: I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib is the correct location. Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to be non-free. Luck, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257 Flexible Software Fax: NONE Black Creek Critters e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't see what you want, just ask --
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?): All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a Debian distribution. This can't be done with nearly all (la)tex related style files. When one wants to change a (la)tex style an other named copy can be used but the original may not be touched. Do we really want to ditch (la)tex? I've added the following footnote: footnoteIt is OK for there to be a requirement that modified versions carry a warning, or that they be released with a different name or version number, or something similar, because we can comply with this requirement if necessary./footnote Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?): All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a Debian distribution. This can't be done with nearly all (la)tex related style files. When one wants to change a (la)tex style an other named copy can be used but the original may not be touched. Do we really want to ditch (la)tex? Being required to change names is fine, as we can do that if necessary. Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Michael Meskes writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?): ... Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able to rebuild LyX. You can't rebuild LyX entirely from source using only packages in the main Debian distribution. [...] All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a ^^^ Fixed the typo. Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Dale Scheetz writes (Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?): [...] xforms is improperly located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is not distributed). [...] Sourceless packages are fine to distribute in contrib, so long as the binaries may be redistributed for profit c. Please see the policy manual, chapter 2. Ian.
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Dale Scheetz writes: Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this That's why there is no source available. :-) source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to be non-free. It was once decided that binary-only packages belong into contrib. Michael -- Michael Meskes |_ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / ___// / // / / __ \___ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ ) Use Debian Linux!| //_/ /_/ //\___/_/ //
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Dale Scheetz writes: That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms package available. Folks that buy my CD can too, but that's because xforms is improperly located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib is the correct location. not distributed). Non-free is not part of the Debian distribution (in the most technical use of the term) and programs that depend on them belong in contrib (or non-free if they have distribution restrictions). But with xforms belonging into contrib LyX is compilable by everyone. Michael -- Michael Meskes |_ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / ___// / // / / __ \___ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ ) Use Debian Linux!| //_/ /_/ //\___/_/ //
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Let's assume the packages that depend on Motif will eventually get better as LessTif matures (by the way, someone should package LessTif _now_). I don't have a problem with your proposal. Can counter-argument be directed to me, please? Thanks Bruce
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
I think the you must rename the file if you change it restriction of the LaTeX style sheet files is one that we _can_ live with. This should not require them to go in contrib or non-free. Ian, I don't know how you'd say this in the policy manual. Thanks Bruce
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Ian Jackson writes: 2. Package copyright Please study the copyright of your submission *carefully* and understand it before proceeding. If you have doubts or questions, please ask. The aims of the policy detailed below are: * That any user be able to rebuild any package in the official Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches. Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able to rebuild LyX. [...] All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a ^^^ Debian distribution. That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms package available. Michael -- Michael Meskes |_ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | / ___// / // / / __ \___ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ ) Use Debian Linux!| //_/ /_/ //\___/_/ //
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote: All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a ^^^ Debian distribution. That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms package available. Folks that buy my CD can too, but that's because xforms is improperly located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is not distributed). Non-free is not part of the Debian distribution (in the most technical use of the term) and programs that depend on them belong in contrib (or non-free if they have distribution restrictions). Luck, Dwarf -- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 877-0257 Flexible Software Fax: NONE Black Creek Critters e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you don't see what you want, just ask --
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote: Ian Jackson writes: The aims of the policy detailed below are: * That any user be able to rebuild any package in the official Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches. Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able to rebuild LyX. But not from the original source plus our patches. That's the crucial point. That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms package available. We don't have an xforms package *freely* available. If some Motif vendor decided to start selling packages called motif and motif-dev, we certainly wouldn't consider moving motif apps into the main distribution. Those new packages wouldn't be freely available. Guy
Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
Bruce, if you feel it is appropriate, I'd like you to use your magic fiat power to end the discussion about lyx, contrib, and so forth, by endorsing the appropriate part of the new policy manual. I've attached a copy below. According to that part lyx, all the Motif packages and the compress installer need to go in contrib because of their dependency (at build- or run-time) on non-free software. Alternatively, if noone objects to this message proposing a sensible different _policy_ rather than that we should make an exception I'll take it that what I've written there is agreed by the project. Ian. 2. Package copyright Please study the copyright of your submission *carefully* and understand it before proceeding. If you have doubts or questions, please ask. The aims of the policy detailed below are: * That any user be able to rebuild any package in the official Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches. * That we make available in our packaging formats as much software as we can. * That it be easy for people to make CDROMs of our distribution without violating copyrights. All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a Debian distribution. Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do not allow distribution and copying for profit, without restriction on the amount charged, or where distribution is restricted according to the medium used, or where the distributor must ask any kind of special permission of the authors, or with other onerous conditions, may only be placed in the semi-supported non-free section of the Debian FTP archives. This is important so that CDROM manufacturers can distribute Debian without having to check the copyright of each package individually, simply by leaving out the contents of the non-free area; CDROM distributors are encouraged, though, to check the copyrights on programs in non-free individually and include as many as they can. Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) allow only distribution of compiled binaries (and thus of which only binaries are available), or where the source code which may be distributed is not the complete source code required to compile the program (ie, the program cannot be compiled using only packages in the main Debian distribution), or which depend for their use on non-free or contrib packages, or allow free use only for a trial period (shareware), or are demonstration programs lacking vital functionality (crippleware), or are only installer-packages which require the user to supply a separate file to be installed, or which fail to meet some other policy requirements, may only be placed in the semi-supported contrib section of the Debian FTP archives (unless they need to be in non-free - see above). Programs whose authors encourage the user to make donations are fine for the main distribution, provided that the authors do not claim that not donating is immoral, unethical, illegal or something similar; otherwise they must go in contrib (or non-free, if even distribution is restricted by such statements). Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do not allow redistribution even of only binaries, and where no special permission has been obtained, cannot placed on the Debian FTP site and its mirrors at all. Note that under international copyright law[1] *no* distribution or modification of a work is allowed without an explicit notice saying so. Therefore a program without a copyright notice *is* copyrighted and you may not do anything to it without risking being sued! Likewise if a program has a copyright notice but no statement saying what is permitted then nothing is permitted. [1] This applies in the United States, too. Many authors are unaware of the problems that restrictive copyrights (or lack of copyright notices) can cause for the users of their supposedly-free software. It is often worthwhile contacting such authors diplomatically to ask them to modify their terms generally, or specially for Debian. However, this is a politically difficult thing to do and you should ask for advice on debian-devel first. When in doubt, send mail to debian-devel@lists.debian.org. Be prepared to provide us with the copyright statement. Software covered by the GPL, public domain software and BSD-like copyrights are safe; be wary of the phrases `commercial use
Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?
All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable, modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a Debian distribution. This can't be done with nearly all (la)tex related style files. When one wants to change a (la)tex style an other named copy can be used but the original may not be touched. Do we really want to ditch (la)tex? Erick
