Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Bernd Zeimetz]

On 02/02/2017 01:29 PM, Riku Voipio wrote:
>>> I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
>>> software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
>>> may be in a minority with that view, of course.
> 
>> I am not sure what you mean with "debian", but we (git.d.o) doesn't plan to
>> use gitlab (for exact that reasoning).
> 
> This position means that people will choose to use a completly non-free
> service rather than the service debian provides.

Luckily there are alternatives like https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea -
which is an actually working and maintained fork of gocs. Definitely
more worth a try than gitlab.



-- 
 Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Nikolaus Rath]

On Jan 30 2017, Lars Wirzenius  wrote:
> I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. 

This strikes me as a little odd, though. So if the company that sells 
the "closed shell" goes bust, would that turn the remaining core into
free software for you? 

Or, to put it differently, is an orphaned project with no maintainer to
accept patches preferable to a project with an active maintainer who
rejects some useful patches (because he wants to sell them), but accepts
others?

Curious,
-Nikolaus

-- 
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F

 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Ian Jackson]

Riku Voipio writes ("Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services"):
> OTOH I think the problem is not that "we don't have github workflow"
> but "every maintainer invents their own workflow".

The problem isn't the lack of agreement on git workflow.  The world in
general doesn't have agreement on git workflow, but still manages to
have a fairly-uniform interface to external contributors.  Well, two
"skins" if you will over the same contributors workflow: 1. git clone
something 2. make your changes as git commits that seem to make sense
3(a) git-format-patch && git-send-email or 3(b) git push and press the
"request pull" button in some web UI.

The problems are:

 1. There is^W was (in general, and in practice in many if not most
cases) nothing you can git clone, to get the source of a Debian
package.

 2. There is no formal and established mechanism for offering your
contribution.  (No, sending the output of `git-request-pull' to
the BTS is not a "formal and established mechanism.)

dgit solves the first problem.  Something like a gitlab.d.o could
solve the second.

>   We need to question if not having package sources in git is 
> still useful option

I agree and this is why I wrote dgit.  Please try it out.

>  - or even if source package counts a preferred
> form for modification.

I agree.

> At least "apt-get source" tells me every how
> I should probably use git instead...

apt-get source's suggestion to use the vcs-git repository is (in
general, and in practice in many if not most cases) a lie.

The vcs-git repository:
 * May be out of date compared to the archive
 * Might contain an arbtrarily weird git tree or git history
 * Usually contains a patches-unapplied tree which is unsuitable
   unless you are a Debian expert (see my posts on this passim)

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Riku Voipio]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:42:36PM +0100, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Right, so the answer is that Gitlab is still an "open core" project. I
> > therefore repeat that I find it sad that it's being pushed as a
> > service for Debian to use.

> > I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> > software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
> > may be in a minority with that view, of course.

> I am not sure what you mean with "debian", but we (git.d.o) doesn't plan to
> use gitlab (for exact that reasoning).

This position means that people will choose to use a completly non-free
service rather than the service debian provides.

OTOH I think the problem is not that "we don't have github workflow"
but "every maintainer invents their own workflow". We have very
strict policy on what goes into the binary packages. Meanwhile
there is no effective policy how the source should be structured
in git. We need to question if not having package sources in git is 
still useful option  - or even if source package counts a preferred
form for modification. At least "apt-get source" tells me every how
I should probably use git instead...

Riku

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:31:41AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Sorry, my e-mail was poorly worded.  I'd like to know why Lars thinks
> that they are not sufficiently free.

I don't want to spend much time on this (there are backups to make and
test) so I'll just link to the infinitely wise Bradley Kuhn:
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Adam Borowski]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 09:53:49AM -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:18:38PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> > software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
> > may be in a minority with that view, of course.
> 
> I agree that there can be good reasons to avoid open core projects: the
> open core part might not be adequately maintained, it might be
> prohibitively hard to reimplement non-open core features, etc.

The problem doesn't lie in lack of maintenance nor in lack in features --
many fully free projects have these issues.  What's bad is that the upstream
has a strong motivation to not accept patches that compete with their
commercial offering.

The project is still DFSG-free and can be forked, but it's not like a team
capable of maintaining something that size will pop up from nothing.  And if
we get too uppity, upstream will become hostile.


Meow!
-- 
Autotools hint: to do a zx-spectrum build on a pdp11 host, type:
  ./configure --host=zx-spectrum --build=pdp11

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Sean Whitton]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:59:00PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Lars said that even though they are DFSG-free they do not satisfy his
> own personal Freeness criteria. He didn't suggest they weren't DFSG-
> free which is what you seem to have read (judging from the final
> sentence).

Sorry, my e-mail was poorly worded.  I'd like to know why Lars thinks
that they are not sufficiently free.  The reasons I listed might count
for him as reasons the software isn't free, or he might have other
reasons.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Sean Whitton]

Dear Lars,

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:18:38PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
> may be in a minority with that view, of course.

Possibly we should change mailing list, but could you explain more?

I agree that there can be good reasons to avoid open core projects: the
open core part might not be adequately maintained, it might be
prohibitively hard to reimplement non-open core features, etc.  But none
of these are reasons why open core projects are not DFSG-free.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 09:53 -0700, Sean Whitton wrote:
> Dear Lars,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 05:18:38PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> > software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
> > may be in a minority with that view, of course.
> 
> Possibly we should change mailing list, but could you explain more?
> 
> I agree that there can be good reasons to avoid open core projects: the
> open core part might not be adequately maintained, it might be
> prohibitively hard to reimplement non-open core features, etc.  But none
> of these are reasons why open core projects are not DFSG-free.

Lars said that even though they are DFSG-free they do not satisfy his
own personal Freeness criteria. He didn't suggest they weren't DFSG-
free which is what you seem to have read (judging from the final
sentence).

Ian.

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Alexander Wirt]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017, Lars Wirzenius wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 07:16:59PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> > On തിങ്കള്‍ 30 ജനുവരി 2017 07:05 വൈകു, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > Is the Gitlab software still an "open core" product of Gitlab the
> > > company?
> > > 
> > 
> > git.fosscommunity.in is running Gitlab Community Edition, code that is
> > DFSG compliant and accepted in debian main
> > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gitlab
> > 
> > gitlab.com runs Gitlab Enterprise Edition. See
> > https://about.gitlab.com/products/ for different products of Gitlab Inc
> 
> Right, so the answer is that Gitlab is still an "open core" project. I
> therefore repeat that I find it sad that it's being pushed as a
> service for Debian to use.
> 
> I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
> software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
> may be in a minority with that view, of course.
I am not sure what you mean with "debian", but we (git.d.o) doesn't plan to
use gitlab (for exact that reasoning).

Alex



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 07:16:59PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> On തിങ്കള്‍ 30 ജനുവരി 2017 07:05 വൈകു, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > Is the Gitlab software still an "open core" product of Gitlab the
> > company?
> > 
> 
> git.fosscommunity.in is running Gitlab Community Edition, code that is
> DFSG compliant and accepted in debian main
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gitlab
> 
> gitlab.com runs Gitlab Enterprise Edition. See
> https://about.gitlab.com/products/ for different products of Gitlab Inc

Right, so the answer is that Gitlab is still an "open core" project. I
therefore repeat that I find it sad that it's being pushed as a
service for Debian to use.

I personally don't find "open core" projects to be fully free
software, even if they follow current DFSG, OSI, and FSF criteria. I
may be in a minority with that view, of course.

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Pirate Praveen]

On തിങ്കള്‍ 30 ജനുവരി 2017 07:05 വൈകു, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 06:57:46PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> The entire idea of that instance is to make a 100% Free Software public
>> git hosting service available to the Free Software community.
> 
> Is the Gitlab software still an "open core" product of Gitlab the
> company?
> 

git.fosscommunity.in is running Gitlab Community Edition, code that is
DFSG compliant and accepted in debian main
https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gitlab

gitlab.com runs Gitlab Enterprise Edition. See
https://about.gitlab.com/products/ for different products of Gitlab Inc



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Lars Wirzenius]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 06:57:46PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> The entire idea of that instance is to make a 100% Free Software public
> git hosting service available to the Free Software community.

Is the Gitlab software still an "open core" product of Gitlab the
company?

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Git hosting for code that provides Debian services

[Pirate Praveen]

On വെള്ളി 20 ജനുവരി 2017 04:59 രാവിലെ, Ben Finney wrote:
> Ian Jackson  writes:
> 
>> For a debian.org service, I would like to be able to check out the
>> running version without interacting with a proprietary online service.
> 
> I have been looking at the GitLab instance hosted at FOSS Community
> India's servers, . It's been working
> fine for a few months.
> 
> Do the FOSS Community India people want us to make larger use of that
> GitLab instance for general Debian code bases?

We'd be happy to have more people use it.

There is also gitlab.debian.net alias for this instance, though it will
need a local account to work. There is a feature request for supporting
multiple domains https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/19449

>> Using github as well is up to you. I won't try to talk you out of it.
>> But I think for a service in the .debian.org namespace, bugs should be
>> reportable without interacting with a proprietary web service.
> 
> I believe the GitLab running at the above URL is entirely free software.

The entire idea of that instance is to make a 100% Free Software public
git hosting service available to the Free Software community.

Yes, it is running gitlab debian package backported for jessie
(https://people.debian.org/~praveen/gitlab). All code is in debian main.
We'll switch to stretch once its released so it will be a fully official
package (though I plan to provide updates via stretch-backports, which
is still official debian).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature