Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: AFAIK, ftp-masters only reject a package if inclusion and distribution in Debian would be illegal. This is not the case with the GFDL. I think in a typical case, the decision is up to the package maintainer, and if the maintainer doesn't agree, the tech committee may resolve this issue. Really? I thought the technical committee dealt with technical problems, not with licensing. debian-legal is merely used for discussion, not for decision-making. So you are saying that if Joe Developer decides a license is free according to his understanding of the DFSG, in disagreement with a consensus formed on debian-legal, it's okay for him to upload the package unless the technical committee overrules him? -- ,''`. : :' :Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/ `-
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs will be filed: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5); 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@); 5) by a human, with all facts checked first. Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 Steve --
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Steve Kemp [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs will be filed: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5); 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@); 5) by a human, with all facts checked first. Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. Also, I think that even if those bugs in category 1) were ignored until after the release (which would not make me happy), those bugs in category 2) are still release-critical. And if you are correct and we[0] did agree to such a thing, then the instant that Debian releases sarge will be the instant that these will be serious. So fixing them sooner rather than later is better for our users and free software. [0] Please note that I am not a DD, and if I had been at the time of the vote, I would have voted for Proposal F.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Bugs will be filed: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The project agreed by vote that it was not to be considered release-critical for sarge, so, given that your bugs suggest some highly invasive solutions, why be unnecessarily disruptive now? Two bugs will be filed on packages that meet criteria in both 1) and 2). If the release managers would like, I will be happy to auto-tag the bugs in 1) sarge-ignore, If you insist on filing these bugs pre-sarge, yes, please do so. but if you receive such a bug, this does not excuse you from fixing it promptly. As a matter of fact it may do depending on the contextual circumstances. (For example, updates to frozen packages are difficult and therefore limited.) Packages that are related to the following info files are *potential* candidates (please note these files have been stripped of their suffixes): The number of these that relate to frozen packages scares me. You are likely to create a good deal of work for the release management team. :-( In future, please perform such widespread audits *before* base system freezes, not *during* them. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according to the informal survey taken by Branden Robinson of the debian-legal denizens and by my understanding of the current consensus of debian-legal. Since when this in itself has become a reason to remove something from the distribution? -- ciao, | Marco | [9255 siE0ebuYZQM3M] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 07:31:51PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Two bugs will be filed on packages that meet criteria in both 1) and 2). If the release managers would like, I will be happy to auto-tag the bugs in 1) sarge-ignore, If you insist on filing these bugs pre-sarge, yes, please do so. Let's wait until after sarge is out the door. Given the way the vote turned out, I think most developers would agree with the bugs, but also that most developers are right now focused on releasing sarge. -- gram
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes: This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs will be filed: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5); 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@); 5) by a human, with all facts checked first. I object. Until there is universal consensus (either through a vote, leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main, these bugs are wishlist at best. debian-legal consensus alone is not grounds for removal. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 17, Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I object. Until there is universal consensus (either through a vote, leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main, these bugs are wishlist at best. debian-legal consensus alone is not grounds for removal. Agreed. -- ciao, | Marco | [9257 ra8lDzTmEMCHc] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi: [...] Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. And documentation is not software. Also, I think that even if those bugs in category 1) were ignored until after the release (which would not make me happy), those bugs in category 2) are still release-critical. And if you are correct and we[0] did agree to such a thing, then the instant that Debian releases sarge will be the instant that these will be serious. So fixing them sooner rather than later is better for our users and free software. No. You have only detected some packages having GFDL documentation. Surgering them now will mean a lot of work, that we should concentrate in releasing Sarge, not in other different stuff. [0] Please note that I am not a DD, and if I had been at the time of the vote, I would have voted for Proposal F. Whatever you had voted, what counts is what has been decided by majority. -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And documentation is not software. Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. -- ciao, | Marco | [9258 fiI6UHuvMuNz6] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:49:21PM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: Bugs will be filed: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; I recommend not filing bugs on documentation until after sarge. The project agreed by vote that it was not to be considered release-critical for sarge, so, given that your bugs suggest some highly invasive solutions, why be unnecessarily disruptive now? I disagree with this conclusion. As to the fact that the bugs suggest highly invasive solutions, well, there really isn't a non-invasive solution, as much as I would like one. Two bugs will be filed on packages that meet criteria in both 1) and 2). If the release managers would like, I will be happy to auto-tag the bugs in 1) sarge-ignore, If you insist on filing these bugs pre-sarge, yes, please do so. but if you receive such a bug, this does not excuse you from fixing it promptly. As a matter of fact it may do depending on the contextual circumstances. (For example, updates to frozen packages are difficult and therefore limited.) This is of course understood. But one could always upload to unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to certain maintainers (who shall remain nameless) that like to ignore debian-legal or licensing issues that I would that pursue these bugs as vigorously as any others and that I expected them to be fixed, time and circumstances permitting. Packages that are related to the following info files are *potential* candidates (please note these files have been stripped of their suffixes): The number of these that relate to frozen packages scares me. You are likely to create a good deal of work for the release management team. :-( In future, please perform such widespread audits *before* base system freezes, not *during* them. Sorry, I found one package and then wondered how many other packages fell into the same category. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a lot. Here's what I'm going to do as a compromise; please note that I am trying very hard to be reasonable: I will file bugs on those packages with incorrect or incomplete copyright files that are not frozen (priorities optional and extra) because these are release critical according to release policy. The remainder of the bugs will go onto a web page to be announced (so that maintainers can check if their packages are affected) and will be filed as soon as the release happens. I will ping debian-devel once more with a notice once sarge is released; this way, noone can claim they weren't notified of the mass-filing. Is this okay?
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is of course understood. But one could always upload to unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation because some people do not like its license will help the distribution and/or the cause of free software. -- ciao, | Marco | [9259 defuyFfJEVXjM] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi: [...] Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. And documentation is not software. Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation or software? And while some documentation is not software, documentation is treated as if it were software for the purposes of evaluating its freeness. Also, I think that even if those bugs in category 1) were ignored until after the release (which would not make me happy), those bugs in category 2) are still release-critical. And if you are correct and we[0] did agree to such a thing, then the instant that Debian releases sarge will be the instant that these will be serious. So fixing them sooner rather than later is better for our users and free software. No. You have only detected some packages having GFDL documentation. Surgering them now will mean a lot of work, that we should concentrate in releasing Sarge, not in other different stuff. I have offered (what I feel is) a very reasonable offer to hold almost all of these bugs in abeyance until the release of sarge. See my reply to Colin Watson. [0] Please note that I am not a DD, and if I had been at the time of the vote, I would have voted for Proposal F. Whatever you had voted, what counts is what has been decided by majority. I did not claim otherwise. I attempted to provide insight into my reasoning.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 23:26 +0100, Marco d'Itri escribi: On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And documentation is not software. Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. Which application is on hold till Sarge is released. And yes, my car is not DFSG free. Sorry. -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is of course understood. But one could always upload to unstable, AIUI. I am trying to *improve* the quality of the distribution, not decrease it. The sentence was meant to stress to I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation because some people do not like its license will help the distribution and/or the cause of free software. I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing and long and contain an Exhibit A, because they are hard to read and understand. But that does not make them *non-free*. What I have a specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is non-free, not that it is long, or confusing. You are using a strawman example by distorting my position. What will help the cause of free software is if we refuse to compromise on freedom within the Debian distribution. That is, in my opinion, the best thing for the users and for the distribution. And furthermore, in my bugs, I am offering a possibility to move the documentation to non-free. That may be removing it from the distribution, but it will still exist and be apt-get'able.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 22:44 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: El mi, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribi: [...] Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. And documentation is not software. Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation or software? If it is a program, it is software. And while some documentation is not software, documentation is treated as if it were software for the purposes of evaluating its freeness. Why? By whom? Which rule states that? The rights that are needed for software are not needed also for documentation, as those are different. Don't try to mix oranges and apples, please. Thanks, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:49:21 +, Brian M Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: This is an intent to mass-file bugs as required per custom. Bugs will be filed: And shall be promptly closed on the packages singled out below. gnus make message pgg 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; 3) at serious severity (DP sec. 2.2.1 and 12.5); 4) with reportbug -m (maintonly@); 5) by a human, with all facts checked first. manoj -- Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. H.R. Haldeman Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:26:29 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Nov 17, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And documentation is not software. Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it was expected by me, and the author, and a whole slew of other people that what we were talking about applied to eveything on an official Debian CD. manoj -- FOOLED you! Absorb EGO SHATTERING impulse rays, polyester poltroon!! Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:20:42 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió: [...] Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. And documentation is not software. Say what? It sure as hell ain't hardware. And, between software, hardware, and wetware, stuff shipped in Debian is software. manoj -- The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children. Linus Torvalds Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:44:59 +, Brian M Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: El mié, 17-11-2004 a las 19:27 +, Brian M. Carlson escribió: [...] Without wishing to start/take part in a huge flamewar didn't we have a vote and agree to leave such documentation issues until after Sarge's release? Here's the result I'm thinking of: http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 No, you agreed to revert the Social Contract to its previous wording, IIRC. The Social Contract as currently worded (with that vote in consideration) states that Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software. debian-legal interprets that to mean that (and please correct me if I am misstating the consensus) the Debian distribution must consist completely of free software. So if it is not software or it is not free, then it would not be qualified to be in the Debian distribution. And documentation is not software. Have you heard of the Lisp HTML program? Which is it, documentation or software? Both. manoj -- Alcohol, hashish, prussic acid, strychnine are weak dilutions. The surest poison is time. -- Emerson, Society and Solitude Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation because some people do not like its license will help the distribution and/or the cause of free software. I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing and long and contain an Exhibit A, because they are hard to read and understand. But that does not make them *non-free*. What I have a specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is non-free, not that it is long, or confusing. You are using a strawman example by distorting my position. No, you missed the point. The point is that it's not important what position you hold, but that whatever your position (or mine) is, it's not the criteria that developers should use to determine if they need to remove something from the distribution. What will help the cause of free software is if we refuse to compromise on freedom within the Debian distribution. That is, in my The DFSG has always been a compromise, see clause 4. It was needed to get TeX in debian, or most people in the free software community would have considered the project a joke, like it's quickly approaching to be. And every license is a compromise on the spectrum of different liberties which can be granted or not granted to different entities, it's not obvious at all that the specific set of compromises made by the GFDL are unacceptable. opinion, the best thing for the users and for the distribution. And furthermore, in my bugs, I am offering a possibility to move the documentation to non-free. That may be removing it from the distribution, but it will still exist and be apt-get'able. I understand you want to become a developer. Then you should know that non-free is not part of Debian. -- ciao, | Marco | [9263 gaOCy4gIOS2UM] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it was expected by me, and the author, and a whole slew of other people that what we were talking about applied to eveything on an official Debian CD. And in all these years you all did not notice how it was violated and never complained about it? How weird. -- ciao, | Marco | [9264 co1n0nf8IDLNg] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think packages with GFDL material already have sarge-ignore bugs filed. For example, the GDB package has bug 212522 filed already. Yet it is on your list. 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; This is a bug now, but do you really think there are gobs of such packages? Thomas
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes: The sentence was meant to stress to certain maintainers (who shall remain nameless) that like to ignore debian-legal or licensing issues that I would that pursue these bugs as vigorously as any others and that I expected them to be fixed, time and circumstances permitting. We have no way to force developers to take bugs seriously. Some bugs can be fixed by NMU, and for things like this, the ftp masters have discretion to even remove packages that are non-free. But that's a long way down the pike. Things take time, and while I'm totally on your side about the issue here, I think we do better to allow it to take the time it takes. Moreover, the social contract changes are on hold until the release of sarge; they are not yet operative for unstable *or* for sarge. (See the wording of the reversion motion.) So it seems imprudent to do such a mass filing, especially since you are trying to achieve the impossible: force a developer to fix a bug promptly. Thomas
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In case you are wondering about bugs in case 1), please note that the GNU Free Documentation License is non-free in all its forms, according to the informal survey taken by Branden Robinson of the debian-legal denizens and by my understanding of the current consensus of debian-legal. Since when this in itself has become a reason to remove something from the distribution? When the new Social Contract changes go into effect (after the release of sarge), the DFSG will apply in full force to documentation, and there ain't nobody but nobody who thinks the GFDL passes the DFSG.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I object. Until there is universal consensus (either through a vote, leader action, whatever) that GFDL material must be purged from main, these bugs are wishlist at best. Huh? Since when? Ultimately, the judge of licenses is the ftp-master and maybe tech-ctte, but it has long been standard procedure to file serious policy bugs on packages which have non-free material in them. Thomas
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation because some people do not like its license will help the distribution and/or the cause of free software. I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing and long and contain an Exhibit A, because they are hard to read and understand. But that does not make them *non-free*. What I have a specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is non-free, not that it is long, or confusing. You are using a strawman example by distorting my position. No, you missed the point. The point is that it's not important what position you hold, but that whatever your position (or mine) is, it's not the criteria that developers should use to determine if they need to remove something from the distribution. The position that matters is that of the ftpmasters, and they usually delegate to debian-legal. Now however much you may or may not like debian-legal, they are usually the ones that decide this. What will help the cause of free software is if we refuse to compromise on freedom within the Debian distribution. That is, in my The DFSG has always been a compromise, see clause 4. It was needed to get TeX in debian, or most people in the free software community would have considered the project a joke, like it's quickly approaching to be. And every license is a compromise on the spectrum of different liberties which can be granted or not granted to different entities, it's not obvious at all that the specific set of compromises made by the GFDL are unacceptable. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. opinion, the best thing for the users and for the distribution. And furthermore, in my bugs, I am offering a possibility to move the documentation to non-free. That may be removing it from the distribution, but it will still exist and be apt-get'able. I understand you want to become a developer. Then you should know that non-free is not part of Debian. Whatever gave you that idea? I have not once said in this thread (or in any other, AFAIK) that I wanted to be a Debian Developer. Maybe someone said something on -private, I don't know. Now, the reality is that I would, *maybe* sometime in the future. But it is not an urgent desire by any stretch of the imagination, or I would have already filed an NM application. Also, I have known that non-free is not part of Debian for almost as long as I have known about Debian; Graham Wilson converted me from Red Hat and taught me what I needed to know about Debian.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian M. Carlson) writes: 1) on packages that include GNU Free Documentation Licensed-material; These are currently not bugs (but will be as soon as sarge is released and the Social Contract upgrade goes into effect); and indeed, I think packages with GFDL material already have sarge-ignore bugs filed. For example, the GDB package has bug 212522 filed already. Yet it is on your list. I said that I would not file bugs on packages that already had them; that would be silly and counterproductive. I find that harassing maintainers with duplicate bug reports does not endear them to you. I generated the list with grep, awk, and sed. Before I file the bugs, I always check to make sure that there are no bugs already filed. One example which does not have a bug filed is wget. 2) on packages in 1) that do not include the copyright or license of the material in their copyright files; This is a bug now, but do you really think there are gobs of such packages? Actually, you'd be shocked to know that this the case in at least 10 packages I've seen, and that would qualify as a mass-filing (which I consider to be 10 or more bugs). Usually, this happens when maintainers don't include the GNU packages' documentation licenses or don't include things like copyright statements. This is easy to overlook, and all too often it happens. wget is a good example of this kind of accident also.
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 01:42:57AM +, Brian M. Carlson wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Nov 17, Brian M. Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd say that it's not obvious at all how removing crucial documentation because some people do not like its license will help the distribution and/or the cause of free software. I don't like a lot of licenses, specifically those that are confusing and long and contain an Exhibit A, because they are hard to read and understand. But that does not make them *non-free*. What I have a specific objection to in this case is the fact that the license is non-free, not that it is long, or confusing. You are using a strawman example by distorting my position. No, you missed the point. The point is that it's not important what position you hold, but that whatever your position (or mine) is, it's not the criteria that developers should use to determine if they need to remove something from the distribution. The position that matters is that of the ftpmasters, and they usually delegate to debian-legal. Now however much you may or may not like debian-legal, they are usually the ones that decide this. AFAIK, ftp-masters only reject a package if inclusion and distribution in Debian would be illegal. This is not the case with the GFDL. I think in a typical case, the decision is up to the package maintainer, and if the maintainer doesn't agree, the tech committee may resolve this issue. However, since the GFDL is much broader in scope, it is something the entire project should have to decide upon. debian-legal is merely used for discussion, not for decision-making. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: If it is a program, it is software. And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what? What are PostScript files? The line is not as easy to draw as you might think. -- gram
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:10:13AM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote: If it is a program, it is software. And so my Python code that includes docstrings is what? Software. What are PostScript files? Software. The line is not as easy to draw as you might think. On the contrary, the line is not so arcane. Computer related stuff is either a) software, b)hardware, or c) wetware. Simple. manoj -- If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail. Maslow Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 02:05:45 +0100, Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Nov 18, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since the editorial changes (LOL) general resolution, for Debian everything is software. Welcome to the wonderful world the DFSG-revisionist have made for all of us. You are the one revising history. When we voted on the SC, it was expected by me, and the author, and a whole slew of other people that what we were talking about applied to eveything on an official Debian CD. And in all these years you all did not notice how it was violated and never complained about it? How weird. I see I have to dot my i's and cross my t's; I had over estimated my audience. The thought that we were not ensuring that everything on the Debian CD was not DFSG free, and I was unaware of any incidents (I trsuted the release team to take care of release issues). When the GFDL issue was brought to my attention, I researched it, and was starting to build a project wide position statement when I was shut down hard a year ago. I also voted in the editorial changes that clarified what I thought the SC had always said. What have _you_ done about it? manoj -- Government sucks. Ben Olson Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Intent to mass-file bugs: FDL/incorrect copyright files
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 09:37:01PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:24:11 -0600, Graham Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: The line is not as easy to draw as you might think. On the contrary, the line is not so arcane. Computer related stuff is either a) software, b)hardware, or c) wetware. I agree, but was trying to make the point that software is not easily classifiable as either executable code or documentation. -- gram
