Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
2015-04-01 8:20 GMT+02:00 Alessandro Rubini : > The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, > easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to > exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or > later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving > about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. Let me take it one step further. What about if a DD introduced that limitation into an existing software that they are maintaining, on purpose, on the same conditions? Yeah, I know that the ethical rights to do so are not as strong, but the legal background is the same, and the business model would also be the same, right? I wouldn't like worsening the overall quality of the operating system, or the service to our users, to promote particular business models that are flawed from design, and that build essentially not on providing added value, but on extorting and blackmailing users who do not have enough technical knowledge to remove the limitations themselves. Greetings, Miry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafotxvm17seixxv8sscrvkd+gf4gr49ef0tmopw6s_ynz26...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015 08:20:34 +0200 Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable > > restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and > > obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force > > Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. > > How heated. You're right; I apologise. I think I'll stay out of this discussion henceforth and work on something else more enjoyable. :) pgpN3INf4aBLl.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Alessandro Rubini writes: > This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream > author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support > the project. With the significant difference that (as it has been described to us) the work embodies a concrete restriction on its use. So no, not “exactly like” those kind requests which do not limit recipients of the work. > I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a > bug like a million other limitations we have. With the significant difference that the copyright holder has expressed a positive desire that the bug not be fixed. The OP has said: > The 5 user limitation is something in the software, but because it's > AGPL it's not forbidden to remove it. But I think the developer would > ask friendly to remove a version without the limitation from Debian. Since the copyright holder expresses the desire that the work not be in Debian with bugs fixed, that is a strongly negative consideration for that work entering Debian at all. -- \“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things | `\ without evidence.” —Thomas Henry Huxley, _Evolution and | _o__)Ethics_, 1893 | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/85y4mc1hdy@benfinney.id.au
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
> [...] However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable > restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and > obviously fail the DFSG, [...] you are trying to (non-legally) force > Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. How heated. This is exactly like the kind request to send patches to the upstream author, or the kind request to make a donation or otherwise support the project. This kind of stuff is usually accepted. I don't see anything especially bad in a 5-users limitation. It's a bug like a million other limitations we have. For example, in kicad I can't make more than 12 inner layers in the PCB. We accept it because it's by design, but what if there were another kicad sold for profit without such limitation? Worse: open/libre office refuses to open on a different display (export DISPLAY) than the first instance that has been fired. And firefox forces me to create a different profile to achieve that. I find them limiting, and they are not easily patched. Than I'm aware I'm obsolete inside and few people swear at this, but it's similar. The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they are better at marketing than at developing. I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not "defective by design", but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make real use of the distro. But unless we know what this software package is, all of this discussion is moot. The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to exist, and it's unclear whether debian should fix it immediately or later, or not fix it. I'm disappointed about all this handwaving about freedom, when it's just a a bug, even if on purpose. I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. BTW, dual-licensed stuff like Qt is much more predatory than this, and still is in main -- but I don't want to open this can of worms, it's just as a comparison about what commercial models debian supports (one-copyright holder, no unassigned contributions, separate proprietary distribution channel) and what we discuss strongly about (an upstream author who honestly claims he has completely-free software with an easily-patched limitation in order to bring some non-techie to support him). thanks for reading /alessandro, not a DD, not a lawyer, and commercially irrelevant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150401062034.ga...@mail.gnudd.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 23:06:57 +0200 Paul van der Vlis wrote: > Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: > > >> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? > >> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html > > > > Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from > > distributing isos compiled from the source. > > So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. No they aren't. The source that CentOS uses is modified to remove references to Red Hat. > > How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. > > And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal > > that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't > > make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters > > decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. > > I think the constitution says that "plain AGPL" is OK. The constitution refers to licenses, but it has come to be understood that the upstream interpretation of, *and intentions behind*, the license forms part of this definition. For example, PINE had a MIT-style license, but upstream interpreted this to mean that both modification and distribution were permitted, but not distribution of modified copies. The solution wasn't to declare all MIT-style licenses non-free, but rather to declare such licenses non-free only when applied to PINE. Before you argue that you are not like PINE, and you are granting full permissions under the AGPL, and are only making a request, note that the above case was only cited as precedent for the constitutional understanding of licenses. In your case, you are trying to make restrictions without putting them in the copyright license, and thinking that you can get around the constitution that way. However, your intention is to apply a non-legally enforcable restriction that, were it in a license, would immediately and obviously fail the DFSG, at the expense of Debian's users. And that you threatened to "friendly request" that the software be removed from Debian should we fail to meet your wishes, is evidence that you are trying to (non-legally) force Debian to adopt a licensing scheme contrary to its values. > > In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into > > main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't > > that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the > > non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed > > of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with > > invariant sections. > > Do you want to put free software into nonfree? Not if it's intentionally broken. In that case, I'd rather keep it out of the archive altogether. > > Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as > > obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) > > Do you mean freedom as in beer? Yes. Are you happy now? > I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of > software. Exactly. We don't. And I think that from the discussion on this thread, it is obvious that we won't be making one. Go to Ubuntu and try to sell them on your idea. pgpVgsGcrFwoH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
All of this is outside the scope of -legal. If you want to discuss this, please bring this to -project. Thanks. Paul On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: > Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: >> Please re-read my last mail on this thread. >> >> This conversation is going in circles. > > I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail. > > 1: > >>> I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his >>> program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. >>> He thinks it would make the name of his new program "dirty". > > 2: > >>> I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment >>> what's not "free as in beer". > > 3: > >>> The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing >>> repositories. The correct place of this program would be in "main", but >>> people expect "free as in beer" software there. Myself included. > > 4: > >> Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when >> it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? > > With regards, > Paul van der Vlis. > > > -- > Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen > http://www.vandervlis.nl -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qqd65tpvwvtefunvfdue8wvmt2kc1goq8vo0e-g3ov...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 31-03-15 om 22:40 schreef Paul Tagliamonte: > Please re-read my last mail on this thread. > > This conversation is going in circles. I bring 4 new points in the discussion in this mail. 1: >> I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his >> program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. >> He thinks it would make the name of his new program "dirty". 2: >> I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment >> what's not "free as in beer". 3: >> The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing >> repositories. The correct place of this program would be in "main", but >> people expect "free as in beer" software there. Myself included. 4: > Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when > it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/551b10d6.7020...@vandervlis.nl
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 30-03-15 om 03:33 schreef Riley Baird: >> Do you think RedHat Enterprise Linux is non-free software too? >> https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html > > Yes, it is. The trademark restrictions of Red Hat prevent you from > distributing isos compiled from the source. So far I know Centos and more vendors are exactly doing that. > How much work it was, and who the developer is is entirely irrelevant. > And one more thing - it doesn't matter if you convince debian-legal > that such a software licensing scheme is acceptable, because we don't > make the decisions of what goes into the archive. The FTP masters > decide that, and even then, they too are bound by the constitution. I think the constitution says that "plain AGPL" is OK. > In any case, this only matters if you want the software to go into > main. You'd *definitely* be able to get it into non-free, and it isn't > that hard to tell users to edit their /etc/apt/sources.list to add the > non-free repository. Being "only" in non-free is nothing to be ashamed > of. Many of the GNU manuals are there because they use the GFDL with > invariant sections. Do you want to put free software into nonfree? > Also, it's worth noting that most people in the Linux world are not as > obsessed with freedom as Debian. :) Do you mean freedom as in beer? I think the problem is, that Debian has no repository for this kind of software. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff29h$h7m$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: > Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when > it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? cdrecord is a prominent example, where the developer was vehemently against Debian distributing it, and also vehemently against distributing a forked version. Guess what? Debian distributed it anyway. > The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing > repositories. The correct place of this program would be in "main", > but people expect "free as in beer" software there. Myself included. main is for software which meets the DFSG. Software which is only available at no cost but cannot be modified or used without limitation is not Free Software, and does not meet the DFSG. The correct place for software which can be distributed by Debian but does not meet the requirements of the DFSG is non-free. -- Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come. -- Tussman's Law -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150331204800.ga6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Please re-read my last mail on this thread. This conversation is going in circles. Thanks, Paul On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Paul van der Vlis wrote: > Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong: >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: >>> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: >>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), >>> >>> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user >>> limitation? >> >> If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just >> remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. > > Next step would be a friendly question from the developper to remove the > software from Debian. > > Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when > it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? > > > >> In any event, without particular licenses > > The license is clear, it's plain AGPL. > >> and source files, we're having >> an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to >> Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. > > I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his > program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. > He thinks it would make the name of his new program "dirty". > > I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment > what's not "free as in beer". > > The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing > repositories. The correct place of this program would be in "main", but > people expect "free as in beer" software there. Myself included. > > With regards, > Paul van der Vlis. > > > -- > Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen > http://www.vandervlis.nl/ > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff0ju$kih$1...@ger.gmane.org > -- All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors. #define sizeof(x) rand() :wq -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cao6p2qse+5qa9d5mycsj4psit1ouiug5phu52x3xw9avqsc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Op 24-03-15 om 21:21 schreef Don Armstrong: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2015, Paul van der Vlis wrote: >> Op 24-03-15 om 18:38 schreef Paul R. Tagliamonte: >> >>> Unless it allows modification and redistribution of this (and we do so), >> >> What when the DD who packages it, would package it with the 5 user >> limitation? > > If it was actually AGPLed in its entirety, the maintainer would just > remove code which enforced the 5 user limitation. Next step would be a friendly question from the developper to remove the software from Debian. Do you know an example of software what is distributed by Debian when it's clear the development team behind it, doesn't want that? > In any event, without particular licenses The license is clear, it's plain AGPL. > and source files, we're having > an academic discussion without concrete information or relation to > Debian, which isn't on topic for debian-legal. I've spoken to the developer and he does not want the name of his program into this discussion. In his opinion the question is clear. He thinks it would make the name of his new program "dirty". I think you can say: Debian does not want any software at this moment what's not "free as in beer". The problem is, that such software does not fit in any of the existing repositories. The correct place of this program would be in "main", but people expect "free as in beer" software there. Myself included. With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mff0ju$kih$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts
Paul Tagliamonte writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ben Finney writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> > > For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
> > > packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
> > > the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.
> >
> > I disagree both with this recommendation, and with the assertion that
> > we normally recommend using the same licence for Debian packaging as
> > upstream use for the program.
>
> This makes sense for cases where you have patches which are creative;
> I've seen a lot of GPL'd debian/* files, and patches against a BSD-4
> codebase. I question this, and it'd also prevent upstream from taking it
> in.
My recommendation is to use a permissive licence for the packaging.
That GPL'd debian/* files cause a problem in some cases is not an
argument against MIT'd debian/* files !
(Also: there is a difference between _packaging_ and _patches_. The
latter can reasonably be under upstream's licence, and I would
normally send _patches_ upstream under upstream's usual terms. But if
you don't want to mess about with this distinction then a permissive
licence also works.)
> In the case where you're not using the least common denominator of
> licensing (BSD-2, Expat, ISC) for debian/*, matching it to upstream *is*
> good advice.
I agree that if you are not taking my advice to use a permissive
licence, you should match upstream's licence.
> Either way, I stand by my email in <20150330190830.ga12...@helios.pault.ag>,
> and 'check the copyright file' is the best advice for the original
> question.
I agree with this.
Thanks,
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21786.53831.778907.404...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:28:40PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> > For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
> > packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
> > the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.
>
> I disagree both with this recommendation, and with the assertion that
> we normally recommend using the same licence for Debian packaging as
> upstream use for the program.
This makes sense for cases where you have patches which are creative;
I've seen a lot of GPL'd debian/* files, and patches against a BSD-4
codebase. I question this, and it'd also prevent upstream from taking it
in.
In the case where you're not using the least common denominator of
licensing (BSD-2, Expat, ISC) for debian/*, matching it to upstream *is*
good advice.
Either way, I stand by my email in <20150330190830.ga12...@helios.pault.ag>,
and 'check the copyright file' is the best advice for the original
question.
Cheers,
Paul
--
.''`. Paul Tagliamonte | Proud Debian Developer
: :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag
`- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts
Ben Finney writes ("Re: License for Debian Maintainer Scripts"):
> For free software, this forum normally recommends that the Debian
> packaging copyright holders should choose to grant the same license to
> the Debian packaging files as the general license for the upstream work.
I disagree both with this recommendation, and with the assertion that
we normally recommend using the same licence for Debian packaging as
upstream use for the program.
Last time this particular question came up I wrote[1]:
I think that best practice is to choose a very permissive licence for
the Debian packaging files, where they are separate from the program
itself.
That means that any useful parts can be reused in different packages
with different licences, and also that there is no problem if upstream
relicence.
Charles Plessey agreed with me on this point and no-one disagreed.
So I would recommend that Debian packaging (debian/rules, debhelper
setup, etc.) should be licenced by the Debian packager under MIT (or
perhaps 2-clause BSD or similar).
Thanks,
Ian.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2014/08/msg00059.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21786.41224.779771.189...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer
Miriam Ruiz writes ("Re: Free as in speech, but not as in beer"):
> But, regardless of abstract debates, this is what I consider the most
> likely outcome of such situation, if it ever appears. Imagine someone
> packages the software including that restriction and uploads it to the
> archive.
It would probably be possible to make the restriction configurable,
so that a user could disable it easily.
So it seems like our options (assuming no-one manages to change the
author's mind) might be:
(a) Distribute the software with the restriction entirely removed,
within the legal permission granted by the authors but against
their clearly expressed non-binding wishes;
(b) Distribute the software with the restriction on by default but
made configurable, perhaps with only the grudging acceptance of
upstream;
(c) Distribute it with the restriction compiled in.
(d) Do not distribute the software at all;
Both (a) and (b) have their problems but (c) and (d) seem worse to me.
While it is very likely that the TC would (in response to a bug
report) overrule a maintainer who did (c), I'm doubtful whether the TC
would overrule a maintainer who did (b).
Personally I don't think (b) is too bad an imposition on users. It's
not a DFSG violation. At worst it's annoying.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/21786.36139.851558.610...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
