Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:06 -0400, Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity, and is
>> very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing issues. And
>> I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on debian-legal
>> about the GFDL.

> Right. There is consensus in -legal that the GFDL is not a free
> software license (even RMS agrees).

>> This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given the
>> sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
>> controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue.

> Huh?  It's not a free software license, but because we use `so much
> of it', it's not a bug until 50% of developers agree?  That doesn't
> make sense.  Quantity is not an issue here.

It is not a bug unless there is a firm position statement by
 Debian, or I, as the maintainer, am convinced of the fact.

>> If this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to
>> first get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the
>> release manager?

> Note that they haven't publicably disagreed with -legal.  The
> release manager says he won't treat it as an RC bug for sarge, but
> he didn't say it wasn't a bug.

I am taking the position that the release manager would not
 put forth a release in gross violation of the social contract.
 Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I believe in our RM.

>> Why should we not have a common solution?

> Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal.  It's not a closed list.

I have no objection to people discussing whatever they wish on
 legal either.

>> Should I just move make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in
>> accordance with the spirit of upstreams desires (do not separate
>> the political text from software)?

> That would be your choice to make, as maintainer.  It wouldn't be
> very productive, but it's your choice.

> If fixing this bug is a lot a work, then leave it open until you can
> do it.  It's apparently not even RC for sarge.  But you are saying
> it's not a bug because there are many affected packages.

If I determine that my packages are indeed shipping non free
 material, than I shall ask for them to be removed from testing and
 unstable; since not doing so would violate the social contract.

I am afraid the social contract trumps what the RM may say.

manoj
-- 
Dawn, n.: The time when men of reason go to bed. Ambrose Bierce, "The
Devil's Dictionary"
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Branden Robinson]

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 09:15:13AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> >I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
> > tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
> > project, as you wish.
> 
> I fully support your position on this.
> 
> When a law makes the majority of the population guilty of a crime,
> one should not obey it without careful deliberation.

...except the majority of the Debian Developer population isn't "guilty"
of shipping non-DFSG-free, GNU FDL-licensed materials in packages in
main.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux   |above, but it is too long to fit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Herbert Xu]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
> tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
> project, as you wish.

I fully support your position on this.

When a law makes the majority of the population guilty of a crime,
one should not obey it without careful deliberation.
-- 
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email:  Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2003 at 10:31:59AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
> >>  statement by the project.
> >
> > So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
> > it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether or not the
> > Debian Project has passed a General Resolution specifically withdrawing
> > them.
> 
> If the software has been in Debian since the beginning and has always
> had non-free political texts (AIUI, this is true of GNU/Emacs and
> probably other various older GNU software), I think that's a reasonable
> stance.

Even if a legitimate position, that's not a complete solution to the
problem.  The FSF has been relicensing GNU Manuals that were previously
under DFSG-free terms under the GNU FDL, and adding Invariant Sections
to manuals that previously had none.

This fact has been documented several times on the debian-legal mailing
list.  Examples include the GAWK Manual, the GDB Manual, the GNU Make
Manual, the Texinfo Manual.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson| I suspect Linus wrote that in a
Debian GNU/Linux   | complicated way only to be able to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Andrew Suffield]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
>  the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
>  controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue.  If
>  this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first
>  get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release
>  manager? 

Because they have no authority to make such statements?

>   This issue is not cut and dried (indeed, it took even the
>  mavens on -legal over a year to reach the current position). 

This is essentially false. It was fairly rapidly concluded that the
GFDL can be a non-free license under certain conditions, and that this
use qualifies. It took a bit longer to determine that it was non-free
under all conditions. We then spent over a year trying to find
alternatives to removing all the GFDL documentation from main, and
failed.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'  |
   `- -><-  |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Brian Nelson]

Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>  I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
>>  statement by the project.
>
> So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
> it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether or not the
> Debian Project has passed a General Resolution specifically withdrawing
> them.

If the software has been in Debian since the beginning and has always
had non-free political texts (AIUI, this is true of GNU/Emacs and
probably other various older GNU software), I think that's a reasonable
stance.

-- 
I'm sick of being the guy who eats insects and gets the funny syphilis.


pgpWUiawpsYRX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Friday, 26 Sep 2003 09:43:26 -0500, Steve Langasek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  said:

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> s

> >I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
> >  and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
> >  issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
> >  debian-legal about the GFDL.

> >This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
> >  the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
> >  controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue.  If
> >  this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first
> >  get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release
> >  manager?

> I think there is a fairly clear position statement on this from the
> Release Manager, embodied in the use of the sarge-ignore tag instead
> of trying to reduce the severity of the bugs in question.  I.e.,

Attaching labels that are the purvue of the release manager to
 certain bugs does not, in fact, constitute a position statement. All
 that means is that the release manager does not consider theissue
 important enough to stop the release -- indeed, were he concerned
 that things violate the social contract, you would think we would
 delay the release, neh?

> they are being regarded as non-RC policy violations.  (Or at the
> very least, it means AJ is unwilling to stick his foot where you
> just have by declaring them non-bugs.)

I consider the fact that we are not delaying the release to be
 a nod towards not thinking these are DFSG/social contract violations. 

> >Why should we not have a common solution? Should I just move
> >  make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit
> >  of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from
> >  software)?
>
> >Some have asserted (incorrectly), that the binary packages
> >  would be no different, and end users should see no change. The
> >  fact that people make such assertion shows that they have not
> >  investigated the amount of changes to the packages that would
> >  result, not the decrease in utility.

> *I* assert that because the GFDL clearly does not comply with the
> DFSG, and because it is not clear that a GR to supplement the DFSG
> with a set of DFDG will pass, maintainers of packages containing

Well, nice to know you have telepathy and an ability to
 predict the future. And I suppose you, as with all of us, have the
 right to assert anything you wish: I assert that hot mango chutney is
 better than sweet mango chutney.

> GFDL works should take responsibility of their own accord and start
> looking for a GFDL-less solution sooner rather than later precisely
> to avoid this decrease in utility.

That, too, is a nice sentiment. The rich nations should make a
 better effort to fight global poverty. And people in the middle east
 should live in harmony with nature and each other.

I am not sure that that would improve make, but who knows. 

>
> It is presumptious on your part to close a license bug without a
> clear consensus that the license *is* ok.  There is an outstanding

I close bugs on my packages all the time based on my judgement
 alone. If this is presumption, then indeed, friends, I am guilty. 

> issue here, and there is a need to be able to track the packages
> affected by this issue.  Individual opinions on the freeness of the
> GFDL are secondary to this.  If changing a large number of packages
> can no longer be done without official sanction, then neither can
> bugs such as this be considered closed without a similar official
> statement.

So create a WikiPage. The BTS is there to resolve issues that
 users have with make, and in my opinion, make is not buggy -- at
 least until the DPL, or  the developers by the means of a position
 statement make a determination to the contrary. 

I am closing the bug again. You can, or course, call for the
 tech ctte to override this, or a GR, or get me removed from the
 project, as you wish.

manoj
-- 
Whenever anyone says, "theoretically," they really mean, "not really."
Dave Parnas
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Branden Robinson]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:40:07PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>   I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
>  statement by the project.

So, what we ship in main shall not be a function of whether the works in
it are DFSG-free or not, but shall instead depend on whether or not the
Debian Project has passed a General Resolution specifically withdrawing
them.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  Don't ask the barber whether you
Debian GNU/Linux   |  need a haircut.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  -- Daniel S. Greenberg
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Peter S Galbraith]

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
>  and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
>  issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
>  debian-legal about the GFDL.

Right. There is consensus in -legal that the GFDL is not a free software
license (even RMS agrees).
 
>   This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
>  the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
>  controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue. 

Huh?  It's not a free software license, but because we use `so much of
it', it's not a bug until 50% of developers agree?  That doesn't make
sense.  Quantity is not an issue here.

> If
>  this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first
>  get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release
>  manager? 

Note that they haven't publicably disagreed with -legal.  The release
manager says he won't treat it as an RC bug for sarge, but he didn't say
it wasn't a bug.

>   Why should we not have a common solution?

Everyone is free to discuss it on -legal.  It's not a closed list.

> Should I just move
>  make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit
>  of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from
>  software)?  

That would be your choice to make, as maintainer.  It wouldn't be very
productive, but it's your choice.

If fixing this bug is a lot a work, then leave it open until you can do
it.  It's apparently not even RC for sarge.  But you are saying it's not
a bug because there are many affected packages.

Peter

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Steve Langasek]

reopen 212525
tags 212525 sarge-ignore
thanks

On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> said: 

>   I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
>  and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
>  issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
>  debian-legal about the GFDL.

>   This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
>  the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
>  controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue.  If
>  this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first
>  get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release
>  manager? 

I think there is a fairly clear position statement on this from the
Release Manager, embodied in the use of the sarge-ignore tag instead of
trying to reduce the severity of the bugs in question.  I.e., they are
being regarded as non-RC policy violations.  (Or at the very least, it
means AJ is unwilling to stick his foot where you just have by declaring
them non-bugs.)

>   Why should we not have a common solution? Should I just move
>  make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit
>  of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from
>  software)?  

>   Some have asserted (incorrectly), that the binary packages
>  would be no different, and end users should see no change. The fact
>  that people make such assertion shows that they have not investigated
>  the amount of changes to the packages that would result, not  the
>  decrease in utility.

*I* assert that because the GFDL clearly does not comply with the DFSG,
and because it is not clear that a GR to supplement the DFSG with a set
of DFDG will pass, maintainers of packages containing GFDL works should
take responsibility of their own accord and start looking for a
GFDL-less solution sooner rather than later precisely to avoid this
decrease in utility.

It is presumptious on your part to close a license bug without a clear
consensus that the license *is* ok.  There is an outstanding issue here,
and there is a need to be able to track the packages affected by this
issue.  Individual opinions on the freeness of the GFDL are secondary to
this.  If changing a large number of packages can no longer be done
without official sanction, then neither can bugs such as this be
considered closed without a similar official statement.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpvEqSdUem1l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:20:21 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Hi, On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (the
>>> manual) installed in usr/share/info/make.info*.gz.  Debian-legal
>>> has determined that the GNU FDL is not a free software license,
>>> even without Front Cover Texts, Back Cover Texts, or Invariant
>>> Sections.  While attempts are being made to get the FSF to modify
>>> it so that it is, the FSF appears to be very slow and recalcitrant
>>> about making any changes to the GNU FDL; it will likely be years
>>> before it is changed.  Accordingly, in order to satisfy the Debian
>>> Social Contract *now*, the manual should be removed from the
>>> package as soon as is feasible.
>> Debian legal, by itself, probably does not have the rights to make
>> such a determination. Firstly, there has to be a formal
>> determination to the effect, and needs be ratified by the larger
>> developer body.

> That is absolute nonsense.  The shoe is on the other foot.
> Debian-legal has determined that it does not have the right to let
> in non-DFSG-free material, and that the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free.
> This is within its assigned duties.

Debian user has assigned duties? By whom? Could you point out
 where power was delegated to the mailing list?

I understand that debian-legal acts in an advisory capacity,
 and is very useful to maintainers who need advice on licensing
 issues. And I shall stipulate that there is a rough consensus on
 debian-legal about the GFDL.

This decision to exclude GNU documentation from Debian, given
 the sheer volume of GNU software in Debian, is likely to be
 controversial. And we need to have a common stance on this issue.  If
 this is all so very obvious and clear cut, why is it so hard to first
 get a position statement from the DPL, and possibly the release
 manager? 

Why should we not have a common solution? Should I just move
 make, make-doc, and Gnus to non-free, in accordance with the spirit
 of upstreams desires (do not separate the political text from
 software)?  

Some have asserted (incorrectly), that the binary packages
 would be no different, and end users should see no change. The fact
 that people make such assertion shows that they have not investigated
 the amount of changes to the packages that would result, not  the
 decrease in utility.


> Licenses are not "free until proven non-free" (as you seem to be
> claiming), and the GFDL has quite certainly been proven not to be a
> free software license.  Even RMS agrees that it is not a free
> software license (he claims that documentation is not software).
> Debian's Social Contract states that "Debian will remain 100% Free
> Software".  Not "Debian will remain Free Software plus some other
> stuff."

This issue is not cut and dried (indeed, it took even the
 mavens on -legal over a year to reach the current position). 

> The larger developer body certainly has the right to let in such
> material if it chooses to amend or 'clarify' the Social Contract.
> If you want to do that, start the process of doing so.  Nobody has.

Nope.  If there is going to be a decision taken that requires
 a large number of packages to have to be changed, and generate
 controversy all over the community, it needs be done officially, and
 in concert.

So, get an official position from the project. Get a statement
 by the DPL, or, better still, start the process to issue a position
 statement as defined in section 4.1.5 of the Debian consitution, if
 you think the DPL is unresponsive. 

If your views are oh-so-right, you should have no problems
 convincing 50% of us of the case, no?

>> Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
>> summarily closed.

> I'm not going to start an open-close war right now, but you should
> know that you're quite, quite wrong.

Ah yes. The great master, who is never wrong, has spoken; and
 who am I to gainsay him?  This strong belief that only ones own
 viewpoint is the right one is jejune.

> Forwarding to debian-devel.  No thanks to you for starting what is
> sure to be a flame war.

I see. Any dissent from your view point is starting a flame
 war.  I guess, having a lot of strong minded people in the project,
 we are doomed to such.

manoj
-- 
Is there anything in the universe more beautiful and protective than
the simple complexity of a spider's web?  -- Charlotte
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:41:53 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
>> summarily closed.

> Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to
> policy to start with.  :-P

I did. I feel my packages are not buggy, lacking a position
 statement by the project.

manoj
-- 
"How's YOUR Endless Project coming?" Mark Diekhans
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Nathanael Nerode]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
 summarily closed.
Feel free to modify the severity; I simply set it according to policy to 
start with.  :-P

There's nothing wrong with asking upstream to change its license (and I 
wish you luck).  The single biggest identified problem clause (in the 
no-Invariant Section no-Cover Text license):
>You may not use
>technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
>copying of the copies you make or distribute.
"Technical measures" is not defined.  The natural interpretation 
includes storing a copy encrypted, on an encrypted filesystem, or simply 
non-world-readable.  This applies to copies you *make privately*, not 
just to copies you distribute.  So users like me can't make private 
copies and store them -r.

It is likely that the FSF will eventually be willing to change this.  If 
you feel that you are making progress with getting this changed, 
certainly you can avoid removing the FDL'ed material in anticipation of 
it being fixed.  However, RMS has stated that he's not going to consider 
*any* FDL revisions until he finishes the GPL v.3, which is anticipated 
to take perhaps a year, so you'll have to get his priorities changed.  I 
doubt that it serves Debian's users to have non-free material in 'main' 
for years.

Re: Bug#212525: Package contains non-free GNU FDL material

[Nathanael Nerode]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 02:00:42 -0400, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 


This package contains material licensed under the GNU FDL (the
manual) installed in usr/share/info/make.info*.gz.  Debian-legal has
determined that the GNU FDL is not a free software license, even
without Front Cover Texts, Back Cover Texts, or Invariant Sections.
While attempts are being made to get the FSF to modify it so that it
is, the FSF appears to be very slow and recalcitrant about making
any changes to the GNU FDL; it will likely be years before it is
changed.  Accordingly, in order to satisfy the Debian Social
Contract *now*, the manual should be removed from the package as
soon as is feasible.

Debian legal, by itself, probably does not have the rights to
 make such a determination. Firstly, there has to be a formal
 determination to the effect, and needs be ratified by the larger
 developer body.
That is absolute nonsense.  The shoe is on the other foot.  Debian-legal 
has determined that it does not have the right to let in non-DFSG-free 
material, and that the GNU FDL is not DFSG-free.  This is within its 
assigned duties.

Licenses are not "free until proven non-free" (as you seem to be 
claiming), and the GFDL has quite certainly been proven not to be a free 
software license.  Even RMS agrees that it is not a free software 
license (he claims that documentation is not software).  Debian's Social 
Contract states that "Debian will remain 100% Free Software".  Not 
"Debian will remain Free Software plus some other stuff."

The larger developer body certainly has the right to let in such 
material if it chooses to amend or 'clarify' the Social Contract.  If 
you want to do that, start the process of doing so.  Nobody has.

Don't bother reopening these reports, they shall be just as
 summarily closed.
I'm not going to start an open-close war right now, but you should know 
that you're quite, quite wrong.

Forwarding to debian-devel.  No thanks to you for starting what is sure 
to be a flame war.