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 ?
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 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 ?
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 ?
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 ("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 ?
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 ?
[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:
It 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.
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
> 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
