Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Aug 25, 2004, at 16:52, Matthew Garrett wrote: You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free? I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses actually make impossible. I saw, at one point, a book (i.e., an actual dead tree book) which contained annotated source code for the Linux kernel. If the kernel were under a verbatim+patches license, how would you do that? Last I checked, GNU diff didn't have a dead-tree mode.
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: >>The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian >>applicant: >> >>>5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily >>>discussed on debian-legal recently. Read >>>http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and >>>briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed >>>under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might >>>be for Debian. >> >>Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand > the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. > > That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is > cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up > to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just > be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have > little desire to scrutinize licenses? There is a big difference between saying "there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just be free.", and saying "despite there being licenses and copyrights, we should ignore them". I agree with the former, but not the latter. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as >> >>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the >> >>> motive of the author important? >> >> >> >> I think it really depends on situation and context, and it is unlikely >> >> that accidental obfuscation -- like badly written Perl -- will or >> >> should ever keep something out of Debian. >> > >> > So freedom is more based on motivation than practicalities? >> >> Only you have spoken about motivation. I said that it depends on >> situation and context, and that this issue is unlikely to ever matter >> in practice. To be specific, I don't think anybody's ever going to >> point at badly written Perl and claim it's non-free, or point at >> intentionally obfuscated code in any language and claim it's free. >> >> There's a related issue that we see all the time (about once a year, >> I'd guess), regarding whether "preferred form for modification" takes >> non-existence into account. The general, but weak, consensus seems to > > But for some type of code, and hex editor is the preferred form of > modification. That is hardly none. and the class of code covered, altough > small, is not empty. I imagine that hand written machine language forreally > old computers of the pre-compiler days, or some small chips, as well as things > like boot sectors or various prom thingies enter in that category. Well, yes -- sometimes, like for some firmware, raw machine code *is* the preferred form for modification. > Or if you look at code written by a low-level fanatic, who believe machine > code is the only right tru way. It is not non-free because of that, but > naturally you are free to do a C or whatever reimplementation. As I said, context and situation matter. I do not think Matthew Garrett's attempts to create a decidable rule will succeed. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:51:52PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as > >>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the > >>> motive of the author important? > >> > >> I think it really depends on situation and context, and it is unlikely > >> that accidental obfuscation -- like badly written Perl -- will or > >> should ever keep something out of Debian. > > > > So freedom is more based on motivation than practicalities? > > Only you have spoken about motivation. I said that it depends on > situation and context, and that this issue is unlikely to ever matter > in practice. To be specific, I don't think anybody's ever going to > point at badly written Perl and claim it's non-free, or point at > intentionally obfuscated code in any language and claim it's free. > > There's a related issue that we see all the time (about once a year, > I'd guess), regarding whether "preferred form for modification" takes > non-existence into account. The general, but weak, consensus seems to But for some type of code, and hex editor is the preferred form of modification. That is hardly none. and the class of code covered, altough small, is not empty. I imagine that hand written machine language forreally old computers of the pre-compiler days, or some small chips, as well as things like boot sectors or various prom thingies enter in that category. Or if you look at code written by a low-level fanatic, who believe machine code is the only right tru way. It is not non-free because of that, but naturally you are free to do a C or whatever reimplementation. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as >>> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the >>> motive of the author important? >> >> I think it really depends on situation and context, and it is unlikely >> that accidental obfuscation -- like badly written Perl -- will or >> should ever keep something out of Debian. > > So freedom is more based on motivation than practicalities? Only you have spoken about motivation. I said that it depends on situation and context, and that this issue is unlikely to ever matter in practice. To be specific, I don't think anybody's ever going to point at badly written Perl and claim it's non-free, or point at intentionally obfuscated code in any language and claim it's free. There's a related issue that we see all the time (about once a year, I'd guess), regarding whether "preferred form for modification" takes non-existence into account. The general, but weak, consensus seems to be that it does not. That is, if I write a program, compile it, and destroy the source, I have in fact destroyed the source -- not merely transfered the property of being source to the binary. This cannot be free software. There is no way to get at the preferred form for modification, because I've nuked it. Similarly, if company A writes some software and gives it and obfuscated source to company B, company B can't then link that with the GPL and distribute, claiming that it prefers the obfuscated source it *does* have to the binary it has, without regard to the source that it does not. Similarly, arguing that the plain source is expensive and so the obfuscated source is preferred to paying for the plain code doesn't work. But you want this in terms of intention and practicality: Brainfuck is intended by its designers to be write-only. Nearly anybody intentionally writing in Brainfuck is intending to produce non-modifiable code. Anybody feeding code through an obfuscator is certainly so intending. Brainfuck code is not practicably modifiable -- not even by people who know Brainfuck. Obfuscated code is similar -- even if I know how to write obfuscated C, I can't modify sufficiently obfuscated code. So in both of those cases (Brainfuck and ObfC), intention and practicality align. Perhaps you would be able to find a difference between them, or differentiate my opinions on the subject, if you came up with a different example -- but I can't think of one. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as >> brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the >> motive of the author important? > > I think it really depends on situation and context, and it is unlikely > that accidental obfuscation -- like badly written Perl -- will or > should ever keep something out of Debian. So freedom is more based on motivation than practicalities? >> I'd also suggest that this thread be moved to debian-project. It's more >> of a discussion of the DFSG than of licenses. > > I'm not familiar enough with discourse on -project to post there, sorry. There is no discourse of any significance on -project at present. Of the existing lists it's the right place to be having this discussion. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. >> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. >> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. > > I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as > brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the > motive of the author important? I think it really depends on situation and context, and it is unlikely that accidental obfuscation -- like badly written Perl -- will or should ever keep something out of Debian. > I'd also suggest that this thread be moved to debian-project. It's more > of a discussion of the DFSG than of licenses. I'm not familiar enough with discourse on -project to post there, sorry. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If >> >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. >> > >> > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you >> > give >> > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications >> > for him ? >> >> No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. >> C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. >> Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. > > What about a language that is not widely known ? And where do you put the > limit ? I have to disagree with you about this, the GPL speaks about the > prefered form of modification, not that it has to be readable by everyone. So, > if i program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, then this is the > prefered form of modification, since there is no other form more easily > modifiable, and this is no problem for the GPL. The same goes for a a set of > hole-cards carrying some age old program that someone may have in a closet and > chose to release under the GPL. No. If you program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, and I ask you to make changes and you do so in that language, *then* that's the preferred form for modification. If you say, "I can't!" or you start rewriting it in a sane language, then you didn't have the preferred form for modification in the first place. A card deck is often source. If it doesn't have the mnemonics printed on it, and is just raw punches, then it probably isn't -- I'd certainly rewrite such a program from scratch rather than try to scan the cards and deal from there. > The same goes for code that was written direct in assembly, or direct in > machine language, there is no other version, and it is thus the prefered form > of modification, so it is fine by the GPL. The same argument I just made applies to this, too -- sometimes the source for a program is destroyed. With a hypothetical perfectly write-only language, there never was source. If tomorrow all the C and Lisp source for Emacs vanishes, that doesn't make the binaries the new source. >> Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha! I gotcha this >> time, you wascally wegal-poster! You gave an example, but if I >> pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible, >> it makes no sense!"? Doesn't this game get boring after a while? > > Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem > sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple > floppies. Didn't that get mentioned here already? I thought somebody volunteered to talk to Apple and see if they'd formally relinquish copyright to the 20-or-so bytes of magic to boot their old powerpcs? -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 09:19:44AM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If > >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. > > > > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give > > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications > > for him ? > > No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. > C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. > Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. What about a language that is not widely known ? And where do you put the limit ? I have to disagree with you about this, the GPL speaks about the prefered form of modification, not that it has to be readable by everyone. So, if i program something in unlambda or brainfuck or whatever, then this is the prefered form of modification, since there is no other form more easily modifiable, and this is no problem for the GPL. The same goes for a a set of hole-cards carrying some age old program that someone may have in a closet and chose to release under the GPL. The same goes for code that was written direct in assembly, or direct in machine language, there is no other version, and it is thus the prefered form of modification, so it is fine by the GPL. > Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha! I gotcha this > time, you wascally wegal-poster! You gave an example, but if I > pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible, > it makes no sense!"? Doesn't this game get boring after a while? Well, just wait, i will soon come here to debian-legal with the problem sourunding miboot and its non-free boot sector pilfered from age old apple floppies. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. > C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. > Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. I find badly written perl approximately as hard to deal with as brainfuck. Do you believe that poor quality perl is non-free, or is the motive of the author important? I'd also suggest that this thread be moved to debian-project. It's more of a discussion of the DFSG than of licenses. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 08:51 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of > modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed > the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord > with your professed beliefs, please refrain from advocating such > beliefs until such time as anybody actually combines two works under > patch clauses and packages the result for Debian. The DFSG never use the word modifiable or the phrase "preferred form of modification". I'm not aware of any discussion that's taken place that would allow you to form a conclusion as to what sort of source the project requires[1]. In summary: choke on my fuck. [1] The closest is that there seems to be a loose consensus that in some cases the existence of more easily modifiable code makes a less modifiable version of the same code non-free - so in cases where firmware was written in something other than hex, the hex version is non-free. On the other hand, it is an interesting question - I'll bring it up at the weekend -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If >> they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. > > Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give > it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications > for him ? No. It means a user must have access to the source to have freedom. C is often used as source. Obfuscated C is never used as source. Write-only languages like Brainfuck are almost never source. Why do you think it's fun to repeatedly say "Ha ha! I gotcha this time, you wascally wegal-poster! You gave an example, but if I pretend it's a rigid law, to be applied blindly as often as possible, it makes no sense!"? Doesn't this game get boring after a while? -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Your position on what's modifiable, and what's a preferred form of modification, is so far from the baselines of the project, or indeed the world, that you can only be characterized as extremist. In accord with your professed beliefs, please refrain from advocating such beliefs until such time as anybody actually combines two works under patch clauses and packages the result for Debian. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:30:03PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > >> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place -- > >> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or > >> you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of > >> those is an axiomatic belief. > > > > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the > > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's > > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct. > > There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make > > the use of debian-legal appropriate. > > Do you actually have any authority to make that proclamation, or is it > just as much wishful thinking as my statement that this is an > appropriate place? > > > You believe that there are some languages that are inherently > > non-free? > > No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If > they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. Does this mean that a program written in C is only free if the user you give it to is fluent in C ? Or can get someone fluent in C to make modifications for him ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 12:12:39AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the > credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the > project as a whole. Yes, arguments such as "Branden Robinson should not be taken into account when it comes to trying to determine whether there's a consensus of any description".[1] > Gah. "Agree to for the purposes of doing stuff within Debian". And > that's not the case here - 'In my opinion (not the DFSG's, at present, > per the exception), patch clauses are not free at all. As a result, I > have a difficult time arguing the topic "are patch clauses free with an > added 'you must allow incorporation' requirement?", because my mind is > shouting "but patch clauses aren't even free on their own!"'[1] suggests > that you're not doing that. My arguments are founded in a valid interpretation of the DFSG: "patch clauses are allowed, but as they're a compromise, we don't have to allow the same level of restrictions on patches as we do in other cases". I don't claim that this is the only reasonable interpretation--yours is, too. Neither of us has grounds to claim that our interpretation is the majority one. > You're letting your opinions about the > validity of certain aspects of the DFSG influence your opinions about > whether a license is free or not. I'm letting my opinions about freeness influence my opinions of whether a license is free or not. I consider that a valid influence, because I consider my beliefs about freeness to be directly in line with the spirit of the DFSG. Apparently you don't consider it a valid influence, because you don't consider them to be in line with the DFSG. I'm not inclined to defend myself further on this point. Again, you may disregard my opinion and arguments as you see fit, deciding to ignore my arguments regardless of merit because of your opinion of my opinion. I'm simply not worried, at this point, that a significant number of rational people are going to agree with you and do likewise. > As I've said before, I believe that arguments regarding the freeness or > otherwise of a license should be founded upon the DFSG. How can you > honestly do that when you disagree with fundamental aspects of them? Patch clauses are not a fundamental aspect of the DFSG. The DFSG makes this explicitly clear. "This is a compromise." This argument might have more merit if I believed that freedom to modification wasn't important and that proprietary licenses should be allowed in Debian, and it seems like you're trying to put my beliefs in that class, but they just aren't. [1] Apologies for repeatedly using your name like this, Branden; hopefully you'll accept it as a complement that I consider the notion that your opinion should be ignored to be absurd. :) -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of > discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct). Ok, that sounds reasonable. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that >> they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those > > And in order to do so, you're labelling everyone with an opinion > different from yours "extremists", trying to get them ignored, and > telling them not to argue their position. [1] Nonsense. I believe that people who fundamentally disagree with chunks of the DFSG are extremists compared to the rest of Debian. That doesn't imply that I feel that way about everyone I disagree with. >> standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental >> difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced either of us is ever going to >> convince the other of anything of significance. > > Convincing the other isn't important; what matters is whether Brian's > arguments convince the rest of the project, or whether your counterarguments > prevent them from doing so. The fact that you're favoring ad hominem > so frequently recently suggests to me, at least, that you don't trust > your real arguments to do so. What matters is that certain arguments voiced in debian-legal reduce the credibility of debian-legal, and that has a negative impact on the project as a whole. >> Exactly. It's a common standard of freedom that we all (theoretically) >> agree to, despite it not necessarily being in exactly the right place >> from a personal point of view. Except... > > DD's agree to uphold it, not to agree with it. If they had to agree to it, > nobody would ever be able to propose functional changes to it. You can't > agree to agree to something; individual opinions change over time, and you > simply can't agree to maintain an opinion. You can easily agree to uphold > something, though, even if there are details that you don't entirely agree > with. Gah. "Agree to for the purposes of doing stuff within Debian". And that's not the case here - 'In my opinion (not the DFSG's, at present, per the exception), patch clauses are not free at all. As a result, I have a difficult time arguing the topic "are patch clauses free with an added 'you must allow incorporation' requirement?", because my mind is shouting "but patch clauses aren't even free on their own!"'[1] suggests that you're not doing that. You're letting your opinions about the validity of certain aspects of the DFSG influence your opinions about whether a license is free or not. > Saying "you can't hold that opinion! You promised you wouldn't!" is > ridiculous, and expecting people to promise to maintain an opinion is > insane. As I've said before, I believe that arguments regarding the freeness or otherwise of a license should be founded upon the DFSG. How can you honestly do that when you disagree with fundamental aspects of them? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00535.html -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 17:30 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the > > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's > > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct. > > There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make > > the use of debian-legal appropriate. > > Do you actually have any authority to make that proclamation, or is it > just as much wishful thinking as my statement that this is an > appropriate place? The word "think" is significant here. > > You believe that there are some languages that are inherently > > non-free? > > No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If > they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. What if they are practically modifiable, but only by a small set of people? > > I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses > > actually make impossible. > > Well, let's say I have a program written in some interpreted > language. Now I can't distribute it in usable form. Of course you can. Include a wrapper application that patches it at runtime. > Also, I can't combine two programs which each specify that their > source must be distributed pristinely, using only patches and diffs to > indicate modifications. I could ship the two pristine source files, > but now I need to specify my program as some combinator function. > That's not practical. Write a small application that turns source code A into a diff that can be applied against source code B. > The only thing I can practically do with such code is make > modifications that fit within its originally intended general purpose. > I certainly can't excerpt an interesting algorithm implementation and > use it elsewhere. Sure you can. It's wasteful in terms of the amount of storage space used, but it's entirely possible. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > >> Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place -- >> and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or >> you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of >> those is an axiomatic belief. > > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct. > There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make > the use of debian-legal appropriate. Do you actually have any authority to make that proclamation, or is it just as much wishful thinking as my statement that this is an appropriate place? > You believe that there are some languages that are inherently > non-free? No, I believe some sourceless programs are inherently non-free. If they're not practically modifiable, then they can't be free software. > I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses > actually make impossible. Well, let's say I have a program written in some interpreted language. Now I can't distribute it in usable form. Also, I can't combine two programs which each specify that their source must be distributed pristinely, using only patches and diffs to indicate modifications. I could ship the two pristine source files, but now I need to specify my program as some combinator function. That's not practical. The only thing I can practically do with such code is make modifications that fit within its originally intended general purpose. I certainly can't excerpt an interesting algorithm implementation and use it elsewhere. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:52:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > > > Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place -- > > and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or > > you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of > > those is an axiomatic belief. > > No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the > place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's > ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct. > There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make > the use of debian-legal appropriate. Actually, I think -project would be the appropriate place for those types of discussions (whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct). --Adam
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 15:25 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place -- > and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or > you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of > those is an axiomatic belief. No, I don't think debian-legal /is/ the right place. Debian-legal is the place to discuss whether a license is free or not based on Debian's ideas of freeness, not whether Debian's ideas of freeness are correct. There may not be a more appropriate place at present. That doesn't make the use of debian-legal appropriate. > Well, no more than writing something big directly in machine code -- > and I'm not really clear what the projects' opinion is on write-only > code. I think a kernel written in direct machine code, or a similar > program in Brainfuck, has no source code. There is no reasonable form > for modification, so it's not Free Software. But it's never been > necessary to form a collective opinion on that, so I haven't seen many > arguments either way. I'm not sure I'd agree with that, but this probably isn't the time for the discussion. > But holding up a probably-non-free thing and proclaiming that it's > more non-free than a patch clause doesn't do much to convince me that > patch clauses are free. Yes, source-less programs are worse. But > that doesn't make practically unmodifiable programs free. You believe that there are some languages that are inherently non-free? I'm still waiting to hear an example of something that patch clauses actually make impossible. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 03:00:56PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in > > reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate. > > My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that > they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those And in order to do so, you're labelling everyone with an opinion different from yours "extremists", trying to get them ignored, and telling them not to argue their position. [1] > standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental > difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced either of us is ever going to > convince the other of anything of significance. Convincing the other isn't important; what matters is whether Brian's arguments convince the rest of the project, or whether your counterarguments prevent them from doing so. The fact that you're favoring ad hominem so frequently recently suggests to me, at least, that you don't trust your real arguments to do so. > Exactly. It's a common standard of freedom that we all (theoretically) > agree to, despite it not necessarily being in exactly the right place > from a personal point of view. Except... DD's agree to uphold it, not to agree with it. If they had to agree to it, nobody would ever be able to propose functional changes to it. You can't agree to agree to something; individual opinions change over time, and you simply can't agree to maintain an opinion. You can easily agree to uphold something, though, even if there are details that you don't entirely agree with. Saying "you can't hold that opinion! You promised you wouldn't!" is ridiculous, and expecting people to promise to maintain an opinion is insane. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/08/msg00539.html -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that > they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those > standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental > difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced either of us is ever going to > convince the other of anything of significance. Sure we can. I might convince you that they're in the wrong place -- and certainly debian-legal is the right place for that discussion. Or you might convince me that they are in the right place. Neither of those is an axiomatic belief. And trying to convince people in either direction is a perfectly fine thing to do. It helps ensure that the current interpretations of the DFSG and SC track the project's desires. I don't expect to see DFSG 4 taken out this decade, but that's no reason not to talk about it. On the other hand, your attempts to silence debate on the issue because you're happy with the status quo is worrisome. I don't see any benefit from so doing, and I see a risk that the project's opinions will fall out of synch with its procedure. Lots of shouting is a good thing in this sort of activity. >> I think that compromise is in the wrong place -- DFSG 4 was supposed >> to be a compromise with the rest of the world, but as far as I can see >> the rest of the world punted on that. There isn't anybody using patch >> clauses to release free software -- djb's software is still in >> non-free and will stay there, and the La/TeX people have been great >> about the renaming/patch issue. > > That's more than thinking that it's a hair too loose. Patch clauses > cause practical difficulty rather than philosophical difficulty. In that > respect they're similar to writing code in an obscure language. I'd > argue that writing code in Brainfuck is more of an impediment to freedom > than any patch clause. Well, no more than writing something big directly in machine code -- and I'm not really clear what the projects' opinion is on write-only code. I think a kernel written in direct machine code, or a similar program in Brainfuck, has no source code. There is no reasonable form for modification, so it's not Free Software. But it's never been necessary to form a collective opinion on that, so I haven't seen many arguments either way. But holding up a probably-non-free thing and proclaiming that it's more non-free than a patch clause doesn't do much to convince me that patch clauses are free. Yes, source-less programs are worse. But that doesn't make practically unmodifiable programs free. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 09:38 -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > �"surprising modifications"? > > Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which > he didn't expect. I think you're being insufficiently imaginative about build systems. > > There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free > > software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is > > in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but > > close to the line. > > But I believe that several things that Debian accepts as free should > be considered non-free. That meets your stated definition of > extremism. Do you have a better one, or am I an extremist? Disagreement over individual licenses isn't in itself extremism. Your reasons for doing so may indicate extremism. > My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in > reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate. My goal is to maintain Debian's standards of freedom at the point that they are and where I believe they should be. You believe that those standards should be in a different place. Given the fundamental difference in viewpoint, I'm not convinced either of us is ever going to convince the other of anything of significance. > > If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't > > extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either > > direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different > > interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that > > active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme. > > But the DFSG is a compromise. I would expect that most Debian > developers probably think it's a hair too strict or too lose, if they > think about it at all. They're willing to accept it only because it > *is* a compromise. Exactly. It's a common standard of freedom that we all (theoretically) agree to, despite it not necessarily being in exactly the right place from a personal point of view. Except... > I think that compromise is in the wrong place -- DFSG 4 was supposed > to be a compromise with the rest of the world, but as far as I can see > the rest of the world punted on that. There isn't anybody using patch > clauses to release free software -- djb's software is still in > non-free and will stay there, and the La/TeX people have been great > about the renaming/patch issue. That's more than thinking that it's a hair too loose. Patch clauses cause practical difficulty rather than philosophical difficulty. In that respect they're similar to writing code in an obscure language. I'd argue that writing code in Brainfuck is more of an impediment to freedom than any patch clause. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate >> > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is >> > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would >> > increase significantly? >> >> Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much >> larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because >> I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are >> fundamental to freedom. > > �"surprising modifications"? Modifications which surprise the copyright holder -- code reuse which he didn't expect. >> > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions >> > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several >> > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If >> > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling >> > them extremists because of their knowledge. >> >> Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't >> think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make >> me an extremist? > > There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free > software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is > in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but > close to the line. But I believe that several things that Debian accepts as free should be considered non-free. That meets your stated definition of extremism. Do you have a better one, or am I an extremist? My goal here is to convince you to stop labelling your opponents in reasoned discussion extremists and thus unworthy of debate. >> Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the >> losers? That really could have gone either way. > > If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't > extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either > direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different > interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that > active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme. But the DFSG is a compromise. I would expect that most Debian developers probably think it's a hair too strict or too lose, if they think about it at all. They're willing to accept it only because it *is* a compromise. I think that compromise is in the wrong place -- DFSG 4 was supposed to be a compromise with the rest of the world, but as far as I can see the rest of the world punted on that. There isn't anybody using patch clauses to release free software -- djb's software is still in non-free and will stay there, and the La/TeX people have been great about the renaming/patch issue. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:58:53AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say > >> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to > >> >sabotage the work of -legal. > >> > >> Simple question: what do you think _is_ the "work of -legal"? > > > >License analysis. > > Thanks, that's a useful response. License analysis To what end? No particular end. That's the only common factor running through -legal. Individual subscribers and non-subscribers may have their own objectives. -legal is the place where the analysis happens; you might as well ask what the purpose of the House of Commons is (the answer is effectively the same). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Andrew Suffield writes: >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say >> >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to >> >sabotage the work of -legal. >> >> Simple question: what do you think _is_ the "work of -legal"? > >License analysis. Thanks, that's a useful response. License analysis To what end? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Is there anybody out there?
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at > >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please > >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by > >how close it comes to some end of an arbitrary scale. > > Manners? From you? Ha! Well, you sure told him! > So, at what point does it end? I've seen people seriously (I assume) > suggesting here in the last few weeks that they variously don't > consider the GPL, the BSD or MIT licenses free. If we're going to be > that paranoid, why bother playing this game any more? If you take that > attitude, we've lost already. Who is saying each of these? I've said that I dislike some effects of the GPL, but not that it's non-free. Walter Landry has said that he believes the GPL would fail the DFSG if DFSG#10 wasn't there, but it is, and he hasn't suggested (as far as I know) that he actually considers the GPL non-free. These are the only things I can remember that you might be referring to. I can't remember anyone ever saying that the MIT license is non-free, except for a brief discussion about the MIT's "associated documentation" wording, which we quickly agreed about and moved on. (That's a useful case, in fact: a very short, very clearly free license, but with an interpretation that would be non-free--that "associated documentation" includes documentation that isn't distributed with or derived from the software. It, like the Pine case, shows how free licenses can have non-free instantiations.) Personally, I think the 4-clause BSD's advertising clause feels non-free (eg. the banner ad case), but it's not a strong feeling nor one I'm pushing. I can't think of any sense in which the 2- or 3-clause BSD licenses could be called non-free, or any case where somebody has seriously suggested it. I can't remember anyone ever suggesting that any of these licenses should start being ripped from Debian; if somebody seriously believed that they were non-free, that's what I'd expect. Discussions about established licenses, and understanding and acknowledgement of problems they may have, are very useful. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:34:43PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of > >the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also > >critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most > >of the useless threads are the responsibility of "outsiders" who just > >won't listen, and who would rather argue a point than do anything > >about it (even when action is easier than arguing about it). So if we > >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say > >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to > >sabotage the work of -legal. > > Simple question: what do you think _is_ the "work of -legal"? License analysis. > >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at > >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please > >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by > >how close it comes to some end of an arbitrary scale. > > Manners? From you? Ha! No, from you. I have never knowingly violated my concept of good manners. You just did it twice. > >Why do you *think* we always tend towards the paranoid viewpoint? You > >seem to be arguing at cross-purposes with yourself now; the objection > >is that we classify too much as non-free or non-distributable, and yet > >you argue that our approach is invalid because we might accept > >something as free that we *shouldn't*? > > So, at what point does it end? I've seen people seriously (I assume) > suggesting here in the last few weeks that they variously don't > consider the GPL, the BSD or MIT licenses free. If we're going to be > that paranoid, why bother playing this game any more? If you take that > attitude, we've lost already. Are you just trying to troll? That's so out of the field that I don't know where to start... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Andrew Suffield writes: >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's >> half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in >> discussions here. > >Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, and a cheap attempt at >dismissing a point without answering it, and an inexplicable use of >"patronising"; I suggest you consult a dictionary. I'm not sure what >you think it means, but it makes no sense here. 2 for 2. Well done, Andrew. You didn't let me down at all. >I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of >the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also >critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most >of the useless threads are the responsibility of "outsiders" who just >won't listen, and who would rather argue a point than do anything >about it (even when action is easier than arguing about it). So if we >assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say >about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to >sabotage the work of -legal. Simple question: what do you think _is_ the "work of -legal"? >"Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at >demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please >grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by >how close it comes to some end of an arbitrary scale. Manners? From you? Ha! >Why do you *think* we always tend towards the paranoid viewpoint? You >seem to be arguing at cross-purposes with yourself now; the objection >is that we classify too much as non-free or non-distributable, and yet >you argue that our approach is invalid because we might accept >something as free that we *shouldn't*? So, at what point does it end? I've seen people seriously (I assume) suggesting here in the last few weeks that they variously don't consider the GPL, the BSD or MIT licenses free. If we're going to be that paranoid, why bother playing this game any more? If you take that attitude, we've lost already. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control.
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-24 17:56:54 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andrew Suffield writes: [stuff] Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in discussions here. [...] I think I've disagreed with Andrew Suffield as much as most. His writing is terse and I think he sometimes includes insulting adjectives, but "patronising" is not a word I'd use to describe it. I don't mind terse: if more posters trimmed efficiently and wrote shorter messages, this list would be more usable. Could do with losing the more obvious flamebait IMO, but he still posts some useful info among the grumbles, doesn't seem to do much character assassination and he doesn't constantly curse everyone up, unlike some debian list inhabitants. As for list domination, Andrew doesn't seem to be that common here recently. Actually, I'm not sure whether you were complaining about Andrew there, so it was not a very helpful comment. :-/ -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:43:01PM -0400, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate > > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is > > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would > > increase significantly? > > Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much > larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because > I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are > fundamental to freedom. �"surprising modifications"? > > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions > > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several > > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If > > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling > > them extremists because of their knowledge. > > Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't > think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make > me an extremist? There remains some amount of debate about whether the QPL is a free software license. I don't think disagreement over individual licenses is in itself a sign of extremism - I think the QPL is probably free, but close to the line. > Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the > losers? That really could have gone either way. If it could have gone either way, that suggests that the losers aren't extremists. I think people who disagree with the DFSG (in either direction) are probably extremists - there's enough room for different interpretations and beliefs without actually having to disagree that active disagreement suggests that your opinions are fairly extreme. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:56:54PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >> > >> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal > >> currently includes a large number of people who are on the more > >> extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within > >> Debian. > > > >Irrelevant. debian-legal represents only the group who are interested > >in licensing issues. > > > >Obviously that will include "extreme ends", because anybody who is not > >interested by definition cannot be such a person - if they exist > >anywhere, they will do so here. That's a stunningly useless > >observation. > > Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's > half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in > discussions here. Unsubstiantiated assertion. Also unlikely, and a cheap attempt at dismissing a point without answering it, and an inexplicable use of "patronising"; I suggest you consult a dictionary. I'm not sure what you think it means, but it makes no sense here. [Out of order to save repeating myself] > >Classifying an entire group as being equivalent to the person in that > >group who you personally find most objectionable - well, that's just > >dumb. > > Not when the group is dominated by the objectionable people... And again. > Membership (and, more importantly, participation) in a mailing list > does not just depend on interest. It also depends on the amount of > time and effort that people have available to devote to the > discussions. Start filling their inboxes with fruitless discussions > and only the most interested, most committed people with the most time > to spend will remain. As Debian people already tend to have extreme > views in terms of software licensing, that means we only end up with > the most extreme of the extreme views represented here. People with > strong opinions out at the other end of the arguments will generally > not have got this far. So we end up with arguments between the middle > and one extreme. That's where we are today. I see no connection between this paragraph and the real world. Most of the people on -legal who participate in the important stuff are also critically short of time and tend to skip over useless threads. Most of the useless threads are the responsibility of "outsiders" who just won't listen, and who would rather argue a point than do anything about it (even when action is easier than arguing about it). So if we assume the rest of your argument holds true, the most you can say about that is that they're a (perhaps unintentional) effort to sabotage the work of -legal. "Extreme views" here is a meaningless term and an tasteless attempt at demagoguery. I've tolerated it this far, but enough is enough; please grow some manners. The validity of a viewpoint is not determined by how close it comes to some end of an arbitrary scale. I haven't seen any arguments between arbitrary "middle" and "extreme" points on the scale in a long time, either. So I don't know where you are today, but it's not here. > >> But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots > >> of the *legal* license terms that are bandied about. And how they > >> might be applied in court, with precedent. And in this case > >> professional training is much more important than in the others you > >> named IMHO. > > > >I see absolutely no justification for that opinion. It seems equally > >valid for all the other cases. > > In the other cases precedent and precise meaning are not so > important. If we make a programming mistake, we have a bug. It can get > fixed. If we make a mistake in terms of helping an AM, we can > apologise and try again. In legal terms, we can get sued if we make > mistakes. Why do you *think* we always tend towards the paranoid viewpoint? You seem to be arguing at cross-purposes with yourself now; the objection is that we classify too much as non-free or non-distributable, and yet you argue that our approach is invalid because we might accept something as free that we *shouldn't*? If you can hire us a lawyer (and thereby invoke the defense that if their advice is bad, it's their fault and not ours), it's possible that we can sail a little closer and accept some things we've previously rejected. Absent that, you have just given the reason why we *must* reject things that we are not certain about. If we didn't have -legal, we would have to reject every new license for fear of being sued. As it stands, we can accept some of them. Complaining that there exists a possibility that we reject some things we shouldn't is neither relevant nor useful. And that's not even on the map for the cases that people bitch and moan about the most - these are the cases where the license is clear but not DFSG-free. Lawyers cannot help there. So, correcting your statement in light of all this: In legal terms, if we ma
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 11:08:17AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > >>Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in > > >>the NM > > >>process? > > >As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved. > > > > If *all* answers are accepted, even ones like Andrew Suffield's > > example, I don't see how it does that. > > That's what followup questions are for. Followup questions are pretty > much always necessary for 5a and 6, since most applicants won't give > detailed answers without prodding. Since we're talking in hypotheticals here, feel free to assume that after much prodding all you got was a wordier form of the same thing. It's not particularly unlikely; there is no position so stupid that you cannot find a person who holds it. > Other than that, it's up to the AM to judge "social" competence or > whatever, based on the applicant's participation on the mailing lists, > etc. Debian does not place much importance on social competence in > general (not just in NM) though, as you've probably noticed... Don't confuse competence with conformance. One is a measure of whether you agree with somebody; the other is a measure of whether you can work with them *despite* not agreeing with them. AMs tend to be lousy at this though, so it's one of those things which falls to the DAM (compare the number of applicants rejected by their AM for being a fuckwit to the number rejected by the DAM for being a fuckwit). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is >>> extreme compared to the rest of the project. >> >> I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence >> of knowledge -- sure, the debian-legal regulars have opinions about >> licenses. The X Strike Force probably has opinions about windowing >> systems and weird architectures. That doesn't make XSF or D-L >> extremists, though. To characterize anyone with knowledge and the >> reasoned opinions that spring from it as an extremist is unwise; to >> dismiss them because of this extremism is to restrict yourself to the >> opinions of the unwise. > > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would > increase significantly? Probably, though I think that, taken proportionally, you'd see a much larger increase in the former than the latter. That may be because I think that DFSG 4 doesn't allow surprising modifications, which are fundamental to freedom. > I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions > as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several > things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If > there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling > them extremists because of their knowledge. Debian accepts several pieces of QPL'd software as free. I don't think the QPL is a free software license. Does that fact alone make me an extremist? Is anyone with a position on the GFDL an extremist, then, or just the losers? That really could have gone either way. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:21:17PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is > >> extreme compared to the rest of the project. > > > > I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence > > of knowledge -- sure, the debian-legal regulars have opinions about > > licenses. The X Strike Force probably has opinions about windowing > > systems and weird architectures. That doesn't make XSF or D-L > > extremists, though. To characterize anyone with knowledge and the > > reasoned opinions that spring from it as an extremist is unwise; to > > dismiss them because of this extremism is to restrict yourself to the > > opinions of the unwise. > > So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate > licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is > a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would > increase significantly? I don't believe this are particularly common viewpoints within -legal, so... -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is >> extreme compared to the rest of the project. > > I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence > of knowledge -- sure, the debian-legal regulars have opinions about > licenses. The X Strike Force probably has opinions about windowing > systems and weird architectures. That doesn't make XSF or D-L > extremists, though. To characterize anyone with knowledge and the > reasoned opinions that spring from it as an extremist is unwise; to > dismiss them because of this extremism is to restrict yourself to the > opinions of the unwise. So you believe that if we taught all developers about intricate licensing issues, the number who would be of the opinion that DFSG 4 is a mistake and that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 would increase significantly? I don't wish to characterise people with knowledge and reasoned opinions as extremists. I do wish to characterise people who believe that several things that Debian accepts as free should be non-free as extremists. If there is overlap between the two, that doesn't mean that I'm calling them extremists because of their knowledge. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Andrew Suffield writes: >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal >> currently includes a large number of people who are on the more >> extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within >> Debian. > >Irrelevant. debian-legal represents only the group who are interested >in licensing issues. > >Obviously that will include "extreme ends", because anybody who is not >interested by definition cannot be such a person - if they exist >anywhere, they will do so here. That's a stunningly useless >observation. Thanks. Written in your typical patronising fashion, of course. That's half the reason why a lot of people don't/won't take part in discussions here. But of course you'll find some clever retort to that point too, I'm sure. Membership (and, more importantly, participation) in a mailing list does not just depend on interest. It also depends on the amount of time and effort that people have available to devote to the discussions. Start filling their inboxes with fruitless discussions and only the most interested, most committed people with the most time to spend will remain. As Debian people already tend to have extreme views in terms of software licensing, that means we only end up with the most extreme of the extreme views represented here. People with strong opinions out at the other end of the arguments will generally not have got this far. So we end up with arguments between the middle and one extreme. That's where we are today. >Classifying an entire group as being equivalent to the person in that >group who you personally find most objectionable - well, that's just >dumb. Not when the group is dominated by the objectionable people... >> But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots >> of the *legal* license terms that are bandied about. And how they >> might be applied in court, with precedent. And in this case >> professional training is much more important than in the others you >> named IMHO. > >I see absolutely no justification for that opinion. It seems equally >valid for all the other cases. In the other cases precedent and precise meaning are not so important. If we make a programming mistake, we have a bug. It can get fixed. If we make a mistake in terms of helping an AM, we can apologise and try again. In legal terms, we can get sued if we make mistakes. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] There's no sensation to compare with this Suspended animation, A state of bliss
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:44:25PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > >>Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in > >>the NM > >>process? > >As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved. > > If *all* answers are accepted, even ones like Andrew Suffield's > example, I don't see how it does that. That's what followup questions are for. Followup questions are pretty much always necessary for 5a and 6, since most applicants won't give detailed answers without prodding. > I thought the NM process should make sure people were generally > competent, not just technically? Do we need to review the process as > well as the licensing questions? :-/ The NM templates focus on technical skills. There are only a couple questions in P&P (like 5a and 6) that ask for opinions, which I suppose could be considered non-technical. Other than that, it's up to the AM to judge "social" competence or whatever, based on the applicant's participation on the mailing lists, etc. Debian does not place much importance on social competence in general (not just in NM) though, as you've probably noticed... -- You win again, gravity!
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 06:18:56PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian > > > applicant: > > > > > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily > > > > discussed on debian-legal recently. Read > > > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed > > > > under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might > > > > be for Debian. > > > > > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > > > That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand > > the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. > > > > That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is > > cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up > > to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just > > be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have > > little desire to scrutinize licenses? > > There's a difference between a vague preference, and an opinion that > we should actually do it. Note that this one also implies the DFSG > should be scrapped. OK, but the applicant also has to agree to abide by the SC as part of the NM process. As long as the applicant agrees to the SC and understands the (difficult) process to change the SC or DFSG, I don't see why we should discriminate against any particular opinion. -- You win again, gravity!
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-24 17:55:43 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the NM process? As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved. If *all* answers are accepted, even ones like Andrew Suffield's example, I don't see how it does that. I thought the NM process should make sure people were generally competent, not just technically? Do we need to review the process as well as the licensing questions? :-/ -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:06:39AM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > > > > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > > > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > > > only certain opinions should be accepted? > > > > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > > then it would be unnecessary. > > I thought the point was to find technically competent people to > contribute to Debian. No, it's to stop incompetent people from getting into Debian. We wouldn't need an NM process for the reverse, we'd just accept anybody. > > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian > > applicant: > > > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily > > > discussed on debian-legal recently. Read > > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed > > > under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might > > > be for Debian. > > > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand > the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. > > That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is > cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up > to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just > be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have > little desire to scrutinize licenses? There's a difference between a vague preference, and an opinion that we should actually do it. Note that this one also implies the DFSG should be scrapped. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > > only certain opinions should be accepted? > > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > then it would be unnecessary. I thought the point was to find technically competent people to contribute to Debian. > The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian > applicant: > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily > > discussed on debian-legal recently. Read > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed > > under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might > > be for Debian. > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. That's a poor answer because the applicant clearly doesn't understand the issues involved. Debian of course cannot legally do that. That said, I fully agree with that opinion. Dealing with licenses is cumbersome, time consuming, and largely a waste of time. If it were up to me, there would be no licenses and copyrights. Everything would just be free. Does that mean I don't belong in Debian, simply because I have little desire to scrutinize licenses? -- You win again, gravity!
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the >> feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are >> only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the >> developer population at large. That's because experts tend to have >> detailed opinions about their field of expertise. > > You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is > extreme compared to the rest of the project. I'm arguing that what you perceive as extremism is simply the presence of knowledge -- sure, the debian-legal regulars have opinions about licenses. The X Strike Force probably has opinions about windowing systems and weird architectures. That doesn't make XSF or D-L extremists, though. To characterize anyone with knowledge and the reasoned opinions that spring from it as an extremist is unwise; to dismiss them because of this extremism is to restrict yourself to the opinions of the unwise. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 10:09:02AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >[...] I accept *all* answers, even > > Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the > NM process? As I said, to ensure the applicants understand the issues involved. -- You win again, gravity!
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents > >> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper. > > > >Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a > >strange thing to claim. > > And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal > currently includes a large number of people who are on the more > extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within > Debian. Irrelevant. debian-legal represents only the group who are interested in licensing issues. Obviously that will include "extreme ends", because anybody who is not interested by definition cannot be such a person - if they exist anywhere, they will do so here. That's a stunningly useless observation. Classifying an entire group as being equivalent to the person in that group who you personally find most objectionable - well, that's just dumb. > But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots > of the *legal* license terms that are bandied about. And how they > might be applied in court, with precedent. And in this case > professional training is much more important than in the others you > named IMHO. I see absolutely no justification for that opinion. It seems equally valid for all the other cases. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:01:37PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > Andrew Suffield writes: > >here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to > >practice it. > > But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots > of the *legal* license terms that are bandied about. And how they > might be applied in court, with precedent. And in this case > professional training is much more important than in the others you > named IMHO. My only issue with this line of argument is that this is a volunteer project. If we don't have volunteer lawyers to do this work for us, we make due with what we've got, the same way we do everything else. - David Nusinow
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs > understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't > prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in > one's peers who do. This is an important point which I fully agree with (more below). > I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the > debian-legal list collectively, particularly when it comes from people who > don't participate in its discussions. Maybe there is some sort of "Real > Hackers Don't Need Debian-Legal" elitism going on; maybe it's just good > old-fashioned fear of what one doesn't understand. I get the feeling that the "elitism" as you call it is more related to the above. Perhaps there is some feeling that understanding licensing issues isn't difficult (which would be a misplaced feeling) but more importantly I think that those who have placed their trust in their peers feel that their trust might be violated. It's certaintly how I feel in some respects and it's how I read many of the other critics of -legal, both past and present, as well. That said, I think you're on to the solution by making sure people are aware that these issues are difficult. > At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs > into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal > issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is > actually required. Armchair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance > is antisocial and corrosive to our organization. Agreed, and this approach would get rid of my reservations about simply pointing NM's to -legal for everything. My worry there was that we would either be turning prospective DD's in to robots or that we would be pointing them to so-called experts who haven't studied the issues but are more than happy to enforce their views on to others. I'm trying to come up with an effective outline for good NM questions to accomplish this. Here's what I've got so far, and I'd love more input, especially in terms of actual licenses that people with more experience in this area think are exemplary of the problems inherent in license analysis. - Each question is based on some actual license. This license is meant to highlite one specific issue, either codified explicitly in the DFSG or to be inferred from it. - Each question includes at least one link to the mailing list archive where the license was discussed, so that the NM can read what has been said about the license. The license should be picked so that the discussion isn't too long (the QPL would be a very bad choice, for example) and possibly with particularly good posts. If anyone remembers any very good posts that clearly explain and/or define a point, these would also potentially be noted in the question, or brought up by the AM after the question is answered. - The questions should be a mix of both obviously non-free, obviously free, and less obviously in either camp. For the last category, it should be stressed by the AM at some point, either in the question or the answer, that the boundaries are not so clear cut and that these can be very difficult issues. - I think around 4 to 7 licenses would be a good number to have. There were 4 when I went through NM, and I have to look them over again (along with my answers) so I don't want to comment on them right now. Anyhow, that's what little I've got so far. I'm hoping to attack this in a more concrete manner, with actual licenses and writing after release. - David Nusinow
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the > feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are > only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the > developer population at large. That's because experts tend to have > detailed opinions about their field of expertise. You don't appear to be arguing against the idea that debian-legal is extreme compared to the rest of the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-24 15:01:37 +0100 Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: currently includes a large number of people who are on the more extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within Debian. I find the concept of "the more extreme end of the range" odd. What, there's only one end that's extreme? Personally, I suspect that both extremes are more common here compared to the general debian population, but I don't find it worth trying to measure just now. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-24 15:15:30 +0100 Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the feature macros are a grave mistake [...] Arrrgh, this list was such a peaceful place. Why do you want to bring that horrible flamewar here? ;-) -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. > > Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that > would be all right. :) Err, forget what i said. i thought of patents, not licences. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 01:41:07PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > > only certain opinions should be accepted? > > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an > unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant: > > > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed > > on debian-legal recently. Read > > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents > > licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this > > position might be for Debian. > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. Sure, just move the main archive out of licence encoumbered country, and that would be all right. :) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Andrew Suffield writes: >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents >> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper. > >Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a >strange thing to claim. And it's not what he's claiming at all, as you well know. debian-legal currently includes a large number of people who are on the more extreme end of the range of licensing opinions expressed within Debian. >> Many folks see debian-legal as "armchair laywering" from a position of >> ignorance. How many participants are attorneys? > >Who cares? Being an attorney does not give you any special ability to >interpret the DFSG. Also, turning the question around the other way: > >How many Debian developers are CS graduates and professional >programmers? How many AMs are qualified teachers? > >While these qualifications have their use, they aren't necessary >here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to >practice it. But it's a great help in terms of understanding the meanings of lots of the *legal* license terms that are bandied about. And how they might be applied in court, with precedent. And in this case professional training is much more important than in the others you named IMHO. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] Into the distance, a ribbon of black Stretched to the point of no turning back
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the > patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is > only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer > population at large. That seems like a reasonable approximation of > "extreme". And I suspect the population of lisp maintainers who believe that the feature macros are a grave mistake or that the path-name standards are only still there because X3J13 insisted is greater than in the developer population at large. That's because experts tend to have detailed opinions about their field of expertise. -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
* Andrew Suffield: > Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true > then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an > unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant: > >> 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed >> on debian-legal recently. Read >> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and >> briefly explain how you feel about the including documents >> licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this >> position might be for Debian. > > Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. It's too short to be a valid answer, IMHO, but there's a certain line of thinking perfectly acceptable among DDs which would completely justify such a hyperbolic comment.
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 08:08:34PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote: > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > > to start, but I'll help if I can. > > I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 > should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where > only certain opinions should be accepted? Yes. That's the whole point of the NM process. If this were not true then it would be unnecessary. The following is an example of an unacceptable opinion for a Debian applicant: > 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed > on debian-legal recently. Read > http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and > briefly explain how you feel about the including documents > licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this > position might be for Debian. Debian should ignore licenses and include everything in main. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents >> an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper. > > Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a > strange thing to claim. The proportion of the population of debian-legal who believe that the patch clause exemption in DFSG 4 is a grave mistake or that the GPL is only free because of DFSG 10 seems greater than in the developer population at large. That seems like a reasonable approximation of "extreme". -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:16:06PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents > an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper. Being interested in licensing issues is "extreme"? That's quite a strange thing to claim. > > particularly when it comes from people who don't participate in its > > discussions. > > > At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs > > into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal > > issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is > > actually required. Armchair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance > > Many folks see debian-legal as "armchair laywering" from a position of > ignorance. How many participants are attorneys? Who cares? Being an attorney does not give you any special ability to interpret the DFSG. Also, turning the question around the other way: How many Debian developers are CS graduates and professional programmers? How many AMs are qualified teachers? While these qualifications have their use, they aren't necessary here. You don't have to be an attorney to understand the law, only to practice it. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-24 04:08:34 +0100 Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs. [...] I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where only certain opinions should be accepted? You quoted a huge chunk of my message and still made up something that I did not write to argue against! If you're not going to reply to anything in the message, it's probably best if you start another thread. [...] I accept *all* answers, even Really? *all*? So, what is the value of having these questions in the NM process? if the holier-than-thou folks on debian-legal would not approve. It is stupid to conclude that folks on debian-legal are "holier-than-thou" based on something you made up. I'm very worried that an AM engages in irrational debian-legal-bashing. -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 03:17:13AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > >>I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the > >>debian-legal list collectively, > >I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a > >reasonable > >reaction. > > Great! Can everyone get past the mutual blaming and improve the NM > process then? It is really important that NMs understand that we > actually have real trouble to worry about when looking at copyrights, > trademarks and patents, and that "err on the side of putting > everything in main" really could hurt. Is asking a question about beer > prices (nm_pp.txt Q3, asked of me twice during NM IIRC) enough to do > that? > > Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what > answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of > some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more > interesting things like patent termination clauses or > copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty > common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples > to start, but I'll help if I can. I find it appalling that believe you think that some answers to 5a and 6 should not be accepted. Do you think Debian is some elite club where only certain opinions should be accepted? For those not familiar with NM, the questions are: 5a. The GNU Free Documentaion License (FDL) has been heavily discussed on debian-legal recently. Read http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html and briefly explain how you feel about the including documents licensed under the FDL in main and what consequences of this position might be for Debian. 6. Are there any sections of the DFSG or Social Contract that you might like to see changed? If so, why? I only check to make sure the applicants are familiar with the issues involved (both theoretical and practical). Regarding the SC, I also ask about the recent changes to the SC, how they would have voted, and what they think the best course of action is. I accept *all* answers, even if the holier-than-thou folks on debian-legal would not approve. -- You win again, gravity!
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On 2004-08-23 21:16:06 +0100 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the debian-legal list collectively, I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a reasonable reaction. Great! Can everyone get past the mutual blaming and improve the NM process then? It is really important that NMs understand that we actually have real trouble to worry about when looking at copyrights, trademarks and patents, and that "err on the side of putting everything in main" really could hurt. Is asking a question about beer prices (nm_pp.txt Q3, asked of me twice during NM IIRC) enough to do that? Actually, looking at nm_pp.txt, it's not really clear to me what answers to 5a and 6 would be accepted, given the expressed views of some DDs. Anyway, we probably need some questions about the more interesting things like patent termination clauses or copyright-enforced trademarks (debian logo?), as they are pretty common problems. I'll have to let some of the gurus give good examples to start, but I'll help if I can. [...] Many folks see debian-legal as "armchair laywering" from a position of ignorance. How many participants are attorneys? Few. I think there are a couple of helpful law students subscribed. I'm amazed that they stick around, given the abuse they sometimes get from the "lawyers should go get another job" school of DDs. I appreciate their perseverence and help, though. For my part, I try to listen to lawyers who actually know copyright, trademarks and patents when they talk to me, but that only really happens at conferences recently. I've been exposed to the sharp end of copyright for enough years that I should have learnt something from them by now. To me, a bigger problem with debian-legal is the sheer volume it generates and very few people have indexed it, so it takes a lot of effort to actually learn from history. Grounding firmly in the DFSG is tricky, as they're guidelines, not a closed definition. Recently, debian-legal has also been the victim of some unfriendly people and the tabloids stirring the pot which has amplified the problems. The archive search engine isn't that great for research when there are hundreds of posts about a licence. We've a few things in motion to try to improve that side of things, but I'm sure more help would be welcome. Best wishes, -- MJR/slefMy Opinion Only and not of any group I know http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing Please email about: BT alternative for line rental+DSL; Education on SMEs+EU FP6; office filing that works fast
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs > understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't > prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in > one's peers who do. > > I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the > debian-legal list collectively, I don't think turning around and blaming the NM process is a reasonable reaction. The debian-legal mailing list is often "bashed" because it repreresents an extreme point of view relative to Debian proper. Perhaps this is not necessarily a bad thing - in light of recent events, scrupulous adherenece to license issues has turned out to be the prudent course - but if you want more respect and trust from your peers, you need to earn it by empathizing with their point of view and convincing them you are relevant, not by asking the NM process to instill the fear of debian-legal in all new applicants. > particularly when it comes from people who don't participate in its > discussions. > At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs > into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal > issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is > actually required. Armchair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance Many folks see debian-legal as "armchair laywering" from a position of ignorance. How many participants are attorneys? -- _ivan
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:12:51AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] > > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > > Hello Brian, > > > > * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]: > > > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers > > > about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial > > > English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed. > > > Hell, even native speakers have difficulty understanding licenses like > > > the graphviz license. > > > > oh thats what i like to say too. read my emails :) > > I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs > understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't > prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in > one's peers who do. > > I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the > debian-legal list collectively, particularly when it comes from people who > don't participate in its discussions. Maybe there is some sort of "Real > Hackers Don't Need Debian-Legal" elitism going on; maybe it's just good > old-fashioned fear of what one doesn't understand. Maybe it is just that most people don't have the vaste amount of time to lose that is involved in following and participating in debian-legal, and have the feeling that it is invariably those who have the most time to lose whose opinion is finally adopted by debian-legal, and thus distrust them ? Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 02:15:37PM +0200, Nico Golde wrote: > Hello Brian, > > * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]: > > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers > > about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial > > English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed. > > Hell, even native speakers have difficulty understanding licenses like > > the graphviz license. > > oh thats what i like to say too. read my emails :) I certainly agree. The thrust of my comments was to make sure NMs understand that licensing issues are often difficult, and that if one isn't prepared to wrestle with them oneself, one needs to place more trust in one's peers who do. I am dismayed and exasperated by the recent trend of bashing the debian-legal list collectively, particularly when it comes from people who don't participate in its discussions. Maybe there is some sort of "Real Hackers Don't Need Debian-Legal" elitism going on; maybe it's just good old-fashioned fear of what one doesn't understand. At any rate, I'm not saying we need to make the P&P process turn our NMs into legal experts. I *am* saying we need to educate them that legal issues, even in Free Software, are sufficiently complex that expertise is actually required. Armchair quarterbacking from a position of ignorance is antisocial and corrosive to our organization. -- G. Branden Robinson| Never attribute to human stupidity Debian GNU/Linux | that which can be adequately [EMAIL PROTECTED] | explained by GNU Libtool. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Scott James Remnant signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Helix Player under GPL (was Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance)
Am Fre, den 06.08.2004 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED] um 21:11: > So, this is a side-note about the Helix Player, not fully concerned with the > RPSL per se. > > As I understand it, the Helix player (client side) has recently been > dual-licensed under the GPL. > > There doesn't appear to be any way that the dual-licensing prevents users > from exercising freedoms protected by the GPL, so barring any of the > multitude of problems that can make GPL'd software non-free, it seems to me > that at least the Helix player is Free Software, and should be included in > either main or contrib. > > I don't know what the dependencies are, or if there are any dependencies > that would prevent it from being in main. Thomas, is enough of the helix > player code GPL'd that we can include it in main, regardless of what we > conclude about the RPSL? Yes, the whole code of Helix Player _and_ the underlying Helix DNA Client engine is GPL'd -> can go into main. (actually player + client are tri-licensed [GPL/RPSL/RCSL]). See: https://helixcommunity.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=128 Thomas
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 07:07:11PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft > position statement on the GNU FDL[2]. > > If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as > a whole", I'd appreciate it. > > Given that Raul himself, after a thread that went several directions, said > "I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it currently stands > should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about that."[3], we seem to > be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the > DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help. Actually, I agree with the GNU FDL position, and I even submitted a draft version of a small portion of it to Manoj while he was in the writing phase of it. :-) - David Nusinow
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Hello Brian, * Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-08-09 12:58]: > It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers > about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial > English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed. > Hell, even native speakers have difficulty understanding licenses like > the graphviz license. oh thats what i like to say too. read my emails :) regards nico -- Nico Golde - [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.ngolde.de GPG: FF46 E565 5CC1 E2E5 3F69 C739 1D87 E549 7364 7CFF Is there life after /sbin/halt -p? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 06:57:03PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > [I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] > > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting > > applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for > > this purpose just so maintainers don't have to be licence experts. The > > question about Pine licencing is a pretty good test of basic DFSG analytical > > ability. > > The trouble is, some of the same people who are excused from doing rigorous > license analysis during P&P proceed to style themselves as licensing > experts and spitefully ridicule the people who *do* do the hard work on > debian-legal. We've seen great many examples of this over the past few > months. > > Count me in favor of increasing the amount of licensing-oriented material > in P&P. In my opinion, we want new developers to more easily grasp the > facts that: > > 1) sometimes subtle issues are involved when trying to understand a license; > 2) even licenses like the BSD and GPL represent compromises with "pure > freedom" > 3) phenomena like "moral rights" (droit d'auteur), software patents, and >regulations on cryptography can cause a given work under a given license >to be de facto licensed differently in different jurisdictions that >Debian cares about It can be really tough to test NM's who are not native English speakers about licensing issues. Legal text is very different from colloquial English, and non-native speakers are often completely overwhelmed. Hell, even native speakers have difficulty understanding licenses like the graphviz license. Making sure an NM grasps the gist of the DFSG is reasonable, but actually getting them to understand the subtleties involved is frustrating at best. -- You win again, gravity!
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Walter Landry writes: > > > >In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be > >misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french > >localization list came up with a french style guide without > >"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called > >"French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style > >guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are > >interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. > > Hmmm. That's a bogus example. The French localisation list would not > generally claim that they were making decisions that would affect the > entirety of Debian, whereas licensing decisions _definitely_ > do. You must have missed this flamewar http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/05/msg00764.html It certainly looks like a style guide can affect every package. > debian-legal also tends to be full of pedantic arguments about precise > meanings of words and clauses (inevitable due to the legalese > involved, I suppose) which makes the discussions here very difficult > to join without a very large amount of context/archive > reading/whatever. Here you're complaining that legal analysis is hard... > Add in posturing and bogus summaries and claims of consensus, and > it's easy to see why lots of DDs don't even bother trying to take > part any more. and here you're complaining about behavior found in almost every debian list. I'm not sure that there is anything that can be done about those things. > For -legal discussions to gain general backing and support, we need > to make the much more accessible. Updates to the DFSG are one thing > I'd like to see to streamline some of the discussion; I'm not too keen on having to modify the DFSG everytime someone comes up with a novel way of restricting freedom. I'm more inclined to not accept new restrictions unless they are substantially similar to restrictions already in wide usage for software in main. > maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions would > help too. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 06:05:56AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote: > > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified. > > > > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the > > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful > > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and > > how that springs from the DFSG. > > > > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the > > process of justification that we have gone through. > > If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of, > it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these > carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole. Apart from Raul Miller's[1], I have yet to read a rebutal to Manoj's draft position statement on the GNU FDL[2]. If you would direct me to one which represents "the will of the project as a whole", I'd appreciate it. Given that Raul himself, after a thread that went several directions, said "I'm not trying to convince people that the GFDL as it currently stands should be considered DFSG free. I'm ambivalent about that."[3], we seem to be rather short on comprehensive and well-reasoned defenses of the DFSG-freeness of the GNU FDL. Maybe you can help. [1] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00030.html [2] http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml [3] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00235.html -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | // // // / / [EMAIL PROTECTED] | EI 'AANIIGOO 'AHOOT'E http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
[I am not subscribed to -newmaint.] On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 08:37:40PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > For that matter, I'm not quite sure we should necessarily be subjecting > applicants to the joys of rigorous licence analysis. We have d-legal for > this purpose just so maintainers don't have to be licence experts. The > question about Pine licencing is a pretty good test of basic DFSG analytical > ability. The trouble is, some of the same people who are excused from doing rigorous license analysis during P&P proceed to style themselves as licensing experts and spitefully ridicule the people who *do* do the hard work on debian-legal. We've seen great many examples of this over the past few months. Count me in favor of increasing the amount of licensing-oriented material in P&P. In my opinion, we want new developers to more easily grasp the facts that: 1) sometimes subtle issues are involved when trying to understand a license; 2) even licenses like the BSD and GPL represent compromises with "pure freedom" 3) phenomena like "moral rights" (droit d'auteur), software patents, and regulations on cryptography can cause a given work under a given license to be de facto licensed differently in different jurisdictions that Debian cares about We can't teach people to be respectful of the careful thought and analysis that (often) goes on in -legal, but we might be able to throw enough information at them that they are discouraged from just blindly assuming that all problems are trivially easy, and that they enjoy a perfect understanding of everything that all right-thinking people share. For some reason, some folks assert apodictic certainty about legal issues with a fervor they wouldn't dare attempt with respect to technical software issues for fear of being ridiculed and thought of as immature brats by their peers. -- G. Branden Robinson|It's extremely difficult to govern Debian GNU/Linux |when you control all three branches [EMAIL PROTECTED] |of government. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- John Feehery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Walter Landry writes: > >In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be >misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french >localization list came up with a french style guide without >"consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called >"French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style >guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are >interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. Hmmm. That's a bogus example. The French localisation list would not generally claim that they were making decisions that would affect the entirety of Debian, whereas licensing decisions _definitely_ do. debian-legal also tends to be full of pedantic arguments about precise meanings of words and clauses (inevitable due to the legalese involved, I suppose) which makes the discussions here very difficult to join without a very large amount of context/archive reading/whatever. Add in posturing and bogus summaries and claims of consensus, and it's easy to see why lots of DDs don't even bother trying to take part any more. For -legal discussions to gain general backing and support, we need to make the much more accessible. Updates to the DFSG are one thing I'd like to see to streamline some of the discussion; maybe an _objective_ weekly/monthly summary of discussions would help too. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "Every time you use Tcl, God kills a kitten." -- Malcolm Ray
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett writes: >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly, >> unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several >> variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that >> such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention >> it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever. > >What about the ones that don't directly relate to a DFSG point, but are >not "clearly, unambiguously not free" to everyone? Then they clearly need more discussion and probably, eventually a vote to get consensus. But if we can streamline some of the discussion/argument here by updating the DFSG, that will help. >> pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting >> interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's >> the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. > >I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the >ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a >GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I >suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it >would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a >GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. > >Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a >more formal process), and it seems to work fine. > >As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an >issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to >debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want >single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational >discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a >formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the >process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors >would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. I'm just not at all impressed by the the semi-informal "consensus" check. But you probably guessed that already. :-) The problem I have is that I've seen far too many summaries and consensus claims posted here recently which have been clearly bogus. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "I suspect most samba developers are already technically insane... Of course, since many of them are Australians, you can't tell." -- Linus Torvalds
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Joe Moore writes: > >The freeness of a package effects much more than just the programmers. >It effect the users too. Please don't exclude the users that are >interested. Of course users are important to us, and we need to listen to their opinions. But when it comes to making real decisions, DDs will always have a much louder voice/vote. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Dasmohapatra
Re: Helix Player under GPL (was Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance)
On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 12:11, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I don't know what the dependencies are, or if there are any dependencies > that would prevent [the Helix Player] from being in main. Thomas, is enough > of the helix > player code GPL'd that we can include it in main, regardless of what we > conclude about the RPSL? 100% of the Helix Player should be GPL or GPL-compatible (e.g X11 code that we import without changing the license). If it's not, it's a bug...please file that in our bug tracker. Thanks Rob -- Rob Lanphier, Development Support Manager - RealNetworks Helix Community: http://helixcommunity.org Development Support: http://www.realnetworks.com/products/support/devsupport
Helix Player under GPL (was Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance)
So, this is a side-note about the Helix Player, not fully concerned with the RPSL per se. As I understand it, the Helix player (client side) has recently been dual-licensed under the GPL. There doesn't appear to be any way that the dual-licensing prevents users from exercising freedoms protected by the GPL, so barring any of the multitude of problems that can make GPL'd software non-free, it seems to me that at least the Helix player is Free Software, and should be included in either main or contrib. I don't know what the dependencies are, or if there are any dependencies that would prevent it from being in main. Thomas, is enough of the helix player code GPL'd that we can include it in main, regardless of what we conclude about the RPSL? ~ESP
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 11:15, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: >> Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >> Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Let me get this straight. The freedom that you are trying to protect is >> >> > the freedom to drag an ecosystem contributor into court and sue them? >> >> >> >> Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer >> >> using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he >> >> holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his >> >> rights to do anything with the code? >> > >> > Why should we license any copyrights or patents to him when he's not >> > willing to reciprocate? It's his right to charge us cash for using his >> > patent, but then it's our right to then demand he pay us for using our >> > copyrighted and patented intellectual property. >> >> Well, no reason, really. The same no reason that you license your >> copyrights to those who aren't willing to reciprocate. You have every >> right to make that demand -- but then what you're doing isn't Free >> Software, just a very generous shared source program. >> >> It's still a cool thing, it's just not Debian's cool thing. > > GPL includes all sorts of IP reciprocity clauses. I understand the > tactical differences between RPSL and GPL, but why is this morally any > different? There are no reciprocity clauses in the GPL. There are symmetry clauses -- but nothing compels me to give anything to the upstream as such, ever. I only have to give others the same freedom with a distributed original or derivative work that I had with the original. For example, I can make a modification to Emacs and keep it to myself. Or just share it with my friends -- though they're free to do otherwise with it. And if I find out that Emacs infringes one of my patents, then I can sue the FSF over this. I don't lose the right to keep using Emacs -- after all, I haven't done anything wrong. But I can't distribute it unless I give everybody else the same freedoms I have. In contrast, let's say I'm using Helix -- publicly -- and Real is taken over by Microsoft. Microsoft wishes to squelch all this free software stuff, so they start intentionally infringing patents owned by those known to be publicly using Helix, including me. Now I'm over a barrel: I have to let Microsoft, which hasn't released any of its patents or software to me, use my patents without fee, or I have to pay all the costs associated with stopping use of Helix and switching to something else. That's the kind of problem we're trying to prevent. I understand why you don't want to release Helix under the GPL -- to prevent Microsoft, say, from using it on MSN with modifications without releasing those. And I don't blame you. That seems like a really good reason. You're afraid that if Microsoft or others had certain freedoms, they'd use them in ways which hurt you. But that doesn't make your software Free; it just gives you a good reason to be non-Free to go with all the good reasons to be Free. So maybe there's a way to get you what you want *and* to have Helix be free software. For example, releasing most of Helix under the LGPL with some particularly important parts -- codecs, maybe -- Under the RPSL. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Walter Landry wrote: > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>>Josh Triplett writes: >>> With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus interpretations about a license are valid. >>> >>>pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting >>>interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's >>>the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. >> >>I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the >>ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a >>GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I >>suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it >>would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a >>GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. > > Debian-legal is a mailing list. That is it. The people with real > power (ftp-master, RM, etc.) can decide to ignore debian-legal or not. > I understand that ftp-master generally goes by debian-legal consensus, > but they don't have to. The former RM (Anthony Towns) recently did > not (and caused quite an uproar because of it). Good point. So whatever method we use would be solely for the purposes of making consensus clear to the decision-makers, and the project as a whole would not be appealing our consensus, but the decisions based on that consensus, which they can already do. Nevertheless, I still believe the "Guidelines" approach should be spelled out explicitly, to avoid further issues with people stating that complaints not specifically following from a DFSG point are not relevant. Freeness cannot be reduced to a checklist, and we need to make that clear. >>Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a >>more formal process), and it seems to work fine. >> >>As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an >>issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to >>debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want >>single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational >>discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a >>formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the >>process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors >>would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. > > It would be interesting to see how many of these "single-shot opinion > mails from people uninterested in rational discussion" come from DD's > and how many come from third parties. In the three years I've been > posting here, I've certainly seen plenty from both camps. :) Certainly true. In this case, I was more thinking of the effect in a more formal process of "stuffing the ballot box", by getting many different people to send a mail "voting" in the process without actually considering the issue. However, given what you mention above, I don't think such a formal process is necessary. > In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be > misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french > localization list came up with a french style guide without > "consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called > "French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style > guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are > interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. I strongly agree. debian-legal is an open list, after all. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Aug 4, 2004, at 17:00, Rob Lanphier wrote: >> * Use, modification, or distribution by parties that wish to bring >> patent lawsuits against us. > > If you want this to be a defensive-only clause, I think we (-legal) are > ok with that. We're generally less-ok with it when it would prohibit me > from counter-suing if Real sued me first, or when it'd prohibit patent > claims against parties other than Real. s/parties other than Real/software other than the RPSLed software in question/ , right? Otherwise, a patent holder could sue all users of the software other than Real, and unless that patent holder's license is revoked, they could effectively control distribution of the software. I think the real issue :) is that the clause must be limited to patent lawsuits _over the piece of RPSLed software_. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Rob Lanphier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > * What do you want to prohibit? > > You'll need to read the license for that. However, tangible differences > between RPSL and GPL are noted below: > > * License-incompatible forking. Our business model is predicated on > dual-licensing of the source code. RPSL insures that we can continue to > reincorporate outside modifications into our dual-licensed codebase. Unless I am misunderstanding, I think that this is going to be a showstopper. As I argued earlier with a similar clause in the QPL [1], this is essentially a fee that is paid to the initial developer in exchange for being able to modify and distribute the software. > * Use, modification, or distribution by parties that wish to bring > patent lawsuits against us. If you suspend patent (but not copyright) grants for patent lawsuits, then we don't have too much of a problem. Since patents cover use and distribution, that should cover you. Anything more is over-reaching. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg01705.html
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
* Walter Landry ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040806 14:10]: > If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal, > then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has > happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care > about such issues. If they care, they already browse debian-legal. Some people who care have just given up to discuss here. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Aug 4, 2004, at 17:00, Rob Lanphier wrote: Brandon, [You sent this to a public mailing list, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, so I assume you want replies from people other than Branden.] The process as it exists now is not at all unlike the IETF working group process. The main difference is that, while the debian-legal list functions like an IETF working group list at first, there's not a clean process for getting to closure. There isn't really a process for getting closure because we realize that we have, in the past, certainly made mistakes; and we want to, if new arguments arise, revisit past decisions. However, there is actually a formal procedure for accepting and challenging debian-legal decisions. debian-legal is actually an advisory body which advises the ftp-masters. The ftp-masters, delegated to do so by the DPL under the Debian Constitution, actually decide what may be in the archive, and in which section. So, it is actually ftp-masters who decide if something is free. They just come here for advice. There is also an appears procedure to override the ftp-masters' decisions; that procedure is spelled out in the Constitution. I just woke up, so don't quote me on this, but I think it takes a majority vote of the developers. We've heard a long list of grievances with the RPSL 1.0, and it's difficult to tease out which ones are showstoppers, and which ones are "nice to haves". If we (debian-legal) endeavored to do an analysis of the license, and post a clear summary, would that help? * License-incompatible forking. Our business model is predicated on dual-licensing of the source code. RPSL insures that we can continue to reincorporate outside modifications into our dual-licensed codebase. I'm not sure if requiring that is something -legal would consider a free license. However, we certainly don't have a problem if you only accept patches which give you that permission. You mention below some other projects which do that; I'd like to add Best Practical (request-tracker) to the list as well, now. * Use, modification, or distribution by parties that wish to bring patent lawsuits against us. If you want this to be a defensive-only clause, I think we (-legal) are ok with that. We're generally less-ok with it when it would prohibit me from counter-suing if Real sued me first, or when it'd prohibit patent claims against parties other than Real.
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Josh Triplett writes: > >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a > >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" > >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list > >>of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG > >>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus > >>interpretations about a license are valid. > > > > > pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting > > interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's > > the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. > > I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the > ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a > GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I > suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it > would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a > GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. Debian-legal is a mailing list. That is it. The people with real power (ftp-master, RM, etc.) can decide to ignore debian-legal or not. I understand that ftp-master generally goes by debian-legal consensus, but they don't have to. The former RM (Anthony Towns) recently did not (and caused quite an uproar because of it). > Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a > more formal process), and it seems to work fine. > > As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an > issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to > debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want > single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational > discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a > formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the > process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors > would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. It would be interesting to see how many of these "single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational discussion" come from DD's and how many come from third parties. In the three years I've been posting here, I've certainly seen plenty from both camps. In general, I find this complaining about debian-legal to be misplaced. It is as if people started complaining that the french localization list came up with a french style guide without "consulting" anyone (oh, and they use this strange terminology called "French" to discuss things). If you are interested in french style guides, then that is the obvious place to go. Similarly, if you are interested in legal issues, then you go to debian-legal. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
David Nusinow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote: > > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified. > > > > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the > > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful > > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and > > how that springs from the DFSG. > > > > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the > > process of justification that we have gone through. > > If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of, > it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these > carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole. If there are people who disagree with the conclusions of debian-legal, then they are free to discuss it on this mailing list. This has happened numerous times. You seem to want to force people to care about such issues. If they care, they already browse debian-legal. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett wrote: As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. Or in the formal process, provide a way for non-DD frequent contributors to either have a contribution, or become "registered Debian Users", or something. Personally, I'm quite interested in using Free software in Debian, but I don't have the time to maintain a Debian package. Also, with over 8000 packages in stable/main now (and over 14000 in unstable), I don't think Debian needs more packages just so that I can be a maintainer of "something". The freeness of a package effects much more than just the programmers. It effect the users too. Please don't exclude the users that are interested. --Joe
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Steve McIntyre wrote: > Josh Triplett writes: >>Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >>>But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would >>>remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal >>>would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core >>>objection... >> >>No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to >>consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that >>can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be >>considered Free. > > I think you're mis-stating my point. The default state should not > necessarily be that any license is Free unless proven otherwise. I've > never said that. I did not mean to imply that you in particular did. Some people do feel that way, however, and I feel that is a major problem. >>I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the >>DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed. > > Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly, > unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several > variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that > such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention > it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever. What about the ones that don't directly relate to a DFSG point, but are not "clearly, unambiguously not free" to everyone? >>With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a >>statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" >>interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list >>of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG >>cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus >>interpretations about a license are valid. > > pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting > interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's > the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. I would tend to say a supermajority consensus on debian-legal, with the ability for the project as a whole to override such a decision with a GR, based on sections 4.1.3 and 4.2.2 of the Debian Constitution. I suspect that such an ability would rarely be used, considering that it would be easier to simply get the developers who would vote for such a GR to help you argue your case on debian-legal. Note also that debian-policy is basically self-selecting (albeit with a more formal process), and it seems to work fine. As for some debian-legal members not being developers :), that is an issue to consider as well. On the one hand, many contributors to debian-legal are not DDs. On the other hand, we don't really want single-shot opinion mails from people uninterested in rational discussion. I would tend to say that if it became necessary to adopt a formal process, then it would have to be limited to DDs, while if the process remained semi-informal like it is now, then all contributors would probably be included in the informal "do we have consensus" check. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Brandon, My apologies if I've come out as brash or arrogant. I'm not the type to mince words, and I hope the level of candor that I'm trying to bring to the conversation is at least somewhat appreciated. The reason why this conversation has been revived is because a non-RealNetworks volunteer (Thomas Maurer) has stepped forward to maintain Debian packages for the all of the Helix open source efforts. I've been trying to be supportive of his efforts, while at the same time trying to live within the time and resource constraints that I'm under right now. Without Thomas's involvement, I would not have chosen this time to even discuss the RPSL or other licensing options with respect to the Helix DNA Server and Helix DNA Producer. In retrospect, I maybe should have encouraged Thomas to hold off until a better time for us rather than sending him into a situation where we (RealNetworks) aren't in a position to provide support he deserves. However, now that the discussion is open, I feel obligated to respond to at least some points here. On Mon, 2004-08-02 at 11:47, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > > I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the > > RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG. > > Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G" > in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". > > As the DFSG FAQ[1] puts it: > > 9.Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's > standards? > > A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to > articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means > that if you think you've found a "loophole" in the DFSG then you don't > quite understand how this works. The DFSG is a potentially imperfect > attempt to express what "freeness" in software means to Debian. It is > not something whose letter we argue about. It is not a law. Rather, it > is a set of guidelines. > > > We might be willing to engage in a conversation about changing the RPSL, > > but not in an environment where it is clearly subject to the whims of > > whoever happens to be discussing the issues on the list. > > This is a straw-man argument. It is also inflammatory and insulting to the > subscribers of the debian-legal mailing list, some of whom have been > participating in license discussions and negotiations for years to the > mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. > > Is this the sort of example you really want to set for Debian's future > communications with Real Networks? You've accused me of setting up a strawman, without providing a characterization that you feel is more accurate. Just because there are examples of the process working for some in the past, that doesn't mean it'll work for us. If you aren't interested in working with us, then I guess we are at an impasse for now. I hope to convince you that we're more important than that, but I'm not going to have time in the immediate future to work under the current guidelines as I understand them. The process as it exists now is not at all unlike the IETF working group process. The main difference is that, while the debian-legal list functions like an IETF working group list at first, there's not a clean process for getting to closure. I highly recommend the following process improvement, which I think satisfies the consensus-oriented, egalitarian ethic of Debian, but allows for more efficient interaction with outside parties. Elect or devise a procedure to appoint a debian-legal working group chair. The chair's responsibility would be: 1. Identify and acknowledge new licensing issues as they come up. 2. Guide discussion to constructive conclusion. 3. Approve summary statements of licenses. The actual summary statement may be authored by anyone (including and probably often the party wishing to get the license approved), but the chair would be responsible for ensuring that the summary is an accurate and complete statement of the current consensus on the list. 4. Appeals on the accuracy of the license statement can be made to the Debian project leader. 5. After an approved summary statement is issued (and if the license is deemed "non-DFSG compliant"), the chair may represent the Debian project in further (possibly private) conversations with the party representing the license. While the chair would not be at liberty to change the official position as described in the summary statement, they would be free to speculate and advise on what compromises might be acceptable, and to make public recommendations on alterations to the official position as a result of said conversations. I recommend looking at RFC 2418 for further ideas on how to structure such rules: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418 Not everything is applicable, but with the right sets of checks and balances, I don't believe that there
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 08:24:24PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be > DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still > dislike it; see the bottom of > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which nobody > commented on. FWIW, I find that line of reasoning worrisome; it works just as well to convince oneself that arbitrary termination clauses are free. "We're already in a bad situation, so we don't care about things that make it worse and even harder to fix." > I think we *do* have consensus that choice of venue clauses should be > discouraged, certainly? I hope so, but "should be discouraged" doesn't help much; too many people are hell-bent on getting software into Debian, Free Software be damned ... -- Glenn Maynard
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Nathanael Nerode writes: > Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be > DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still > dislike it; see the bottom of > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which > nobody commented on. Since apparently it requires comment to prevent strange hypotheses from affecting "consensus", let me dispel the fallacy of point #2 from your email: > (2) However, even without such clauses, it's quite easy to use > frivolous lawsuits to do the same amount of damage, thanks to > problems with the US and probably other court systems. (It can be > argued whether or not this is true, but I'll believe it.) Read any complaint filed in a US court. One of the first claims you will find (usually before even the listing of the parties) are those that argue why the court has jurisdiction and venue over the matter. If those claims are missing, the court will refuse to hear the case. If those claims are fraudulent -- for example, they falsely claim the defendant lives in the same state as the plaintiff -- the plaintiff who filed them (or their lawyer) may be liable for contempt of court. Choice of venue clauses compel the defendant to defend himself where the author chooses, and in that upset the normal balance of law. They are a form of discrimination against people who live outside the chosen venue (DFSG#5), in addition to failing the proposed Dictator Test. Michael Poole
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Apologies for the thread break; reading from *not* my usual computer. Glenn Maynard wrote: Regardless of whether choice of venue is a "fee", the only people I've seen who appear to believe that choice of venue is free are you, Lex Spoon and Sven Luther. On the other side, we appear to have: Edmund Evans, Steve Langasek, Andrew Suffield, Brian Sniffen, Evan Prodromou, Branden Robinson, Josh Triplett, Michael Poole, MJ Ray, Nathanael Nerode, Henning Makholm, Raul Miller, Matthew Palmer, Walter Landry, and myself. Actually, Matthew Garrett convinced me that choice of venue could be DFSG-free (see, our opinions are not set in stone), although I still dislike it; see the bottom of http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00812.html, which nobody commented on. Informal and inexact as my reading of these people's posts may be, I honestly think you overstate the disagreement on this issue ... I think we *do* have consensus that choice of venue clauses should be discouraged, certainly?
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Josh Triplett writes: >Steve McIntyre wrote: >> >> But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would >> remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal >> would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core >> objection... > >No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to >consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that >can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be >considered Free. I think you're mis-stating my point. The default state should not necessarily be that any license is Free unless proven otherwise. I've never said that. >I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the >DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed. Again, you're exaggerating this. Some license clauses are clearly, unambiguously not free. Others are not. If we've seen several variations along the same theme where there is a clear consensus that such a thing is non-free, _that's_ when I'm saying we should mention it. Maybe as an example of a common bad license clause, whatever. >With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a >statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" >interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list >of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG >cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus >interpretations about a license are valid. Fine. But what do you consider to be a consensus? Enough for a GR to pass, or a simple majority of the small number of self-selecting interested posters to debian-legal, many of whom are not DDs? That's the point I've been trying to make for a long time here. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G" > >in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". > Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among all > developers. Wow. -- Glenn Maynard
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. > >The "G" in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". On Tue, Aug 03, 2004 at 12:17:56AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among > all developers. Was that intended to be a joke? When I look at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.html I see the following line: The Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) -- Raul
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G" >in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". Obviously, this is your personal view of the issue, not shared among all developers. -- ciao, Marco
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 11:44:32AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the > RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG. Debian's committment to Free Software does not stop at the DFSG. The "G" in Debian Free Software Guidelines means "Guidelines". As the DFSG FAQ[1] puts it: 9. Q: How can I tell if a license is a free software license, by Debian's standards? A: The process involves human judgement. The DFSG is an attempt to articulate our criteria. But the DFSG is not a contract. This means that if you think you've found a "loophole" in the DFSG then you don't quite understand how this works. The DFSG is a potentially imperfect attempt to express what "freeness" in software means to Debian. It is not something whose letter we argue about. It is not a law. Rather, it is a set of guidelines. > We might be willing to engage in a conversation about changing the RPSL, > but not in an environment where it is clearly subject to the whims of > whoever happens to be discussing the issues on the list. This is a straw-man argument. It is also inflammatory and insulting to the subscribers of the debian-legal mailing list, some of whom have been participating in license discussions and negotiations for years to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. Is this the sort of example you really want to set for Debian's future communications with Real Networks? > I would love to work with the Debian project on making sure RPSL is > Debian-free. However, it makes it really difficult to engage the > RealNetworks Legal department when there's a lot of discussion about > personal tastes, but no mapping back to DFSG clauses. That just makes > everyone here believe that there will be an endless stream of > manufactured excuses as to why future versions of the RPSL will also not > be considered Debian-free. It sounds to me like you're constructing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why do you suppose that the Debian community is predisposed to reject the RPSL? What do you know that we don't? Is the RPSL *designed* to undermine user's freedoms, yet sneak into Debian main because it passes the DFSG via some sort of simplistic checklist analysis? If not, what have you to fear? As a licensor I think you have some important questions to ask yourself; you need not share the answers with the Debian Project, but doing so may help us to understand your position, and if your desires are compatible with the aims of free software, why they are. * What do you want to allow? * What do you want to prohibit? * Upon which laws do you ground each of your prohibitions (copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, etc.)? * Why are existing licenses insufficient? + Does the MIT/X11 license[2] permit things you want to prohibit? + Does the GNU GPL[3] prohibit things you want to allow? * Is it important that works under your license be shipped as part of Debian's OS? * If a work under your license is accepted as Free by the Debian Project, but something causes it not to be shipped in the Debian OS[4], would you regard that as a failure? [1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php [3] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html [4] Reasons for this include but are not limited to: A) no one is available to maintain the package B) the package is of insufficient quality to be included; e.g. violates Debian Policy (for instance, ships executables in /usr/share/man) C) the package is too buggy to be included; e.g., has a horrendous bug such as the package preinst script running "rm -rf /" D) the package is accused of infringing a third party's patent, and we know of a litigitous patent holder who claims to own the patents and sends nastygrams ordering people to desist and/or pay royalties E) the software's functionity is outlawed by some jurisdiction that is important to the Debian Project, such as the United States or European Union; F) the software itself is enjoined from distribution in some jurisdiction important to the Debian Project, such as the states in the U.S. Federal 2nd Circuit Lest one accuse me of producing makeweight arguments, none of the above are hypothetical reasons for a package's exclusion from Debian OS release (or from distribution by Debian altogether). Apart from my specific examples of a policy violation and horrendous bug, all have been seen in practice. -- G. Branden Robinson| To stay young requires unceasing Debian GNU/Linux | cultivation of the ability to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | unlearn old falsehoods. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
Steve McIntyre wrote: > David Nusinow writes: > >>2) Steve McIntyre has continually suggested codifying the various things in >>the >>DFSG. I fully agree with this. If you really truly believe that your >>interpretations are shared by the rest of the project, then you have nothing >>to >>fear from this, and you only stand to gain. > > But it seems that codifying the more common non-free clauses would > remove some of the ambiguities in the DFSG, and then people on -legal > would have less to hand-wave about. That seems to be a core > objection... No, I think the main objection is that many people don't want to consider the hand-waving arguments at all, and think everything that can't be precisely related to some specific DFSG point should be considered Free. I dislike the idea that every new clause would require modifying the DFSG, and that clauses which have not yet been prohibited would be allowed. With that in mind, what if we just amended the DFSG to include a statement at the top explicitly acknowledging the "Guidelines" interpretation, and pointing out that the DFSG is not an exhaustive list of allowable license clauses? That way, it is clearer that the DFSG cannot be used as a checklist, and that general-consensus interpretations about a license are valid. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 11:41:19AM -0700, Rob Lanphier wrote: > On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 10:48, Matthew Garrett wrote: >Think about the reverse situation, where a free software developer >using software under the RPSL discovers that it breaches a patent he >holds. Why should his legitimate case result in the removal of his >rights to do anything with the code? > > Personally, I don't really find the "prevents legitimate offensive patent use" > argument too convincing. In practice, software patents are so broken that > I don't really care if a license prevents "legitimate defending of a patent", > at least on the offensive side. > > I do tend to sympathize with defensive patents, if only because it's the only > defense most companies have against offensive patents. So, I feel there may > be something wrong with a license that says "if we sue you, and you sue us > back, you lose your license to this software". I would agree with this entirely. I don't think we should be interested in the ability to sue the author over patents in the work and still keep the right to use the work; that would allow a patent holder to effectively take the software proprietary. In my opinion, the only issue we should be concerned about here is termination for unrelated patent action. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RPSL and DFSG-compliance
Don Armstrong wrote: > A slightly more appropriate patent clause is the one that is present > in the current version of the Apache Source License v2.0. [The > original version was similar to the RPSL, but ASF saw the light, so to > speak, and changed it to something that is (IMO) DFSG Free.] > > If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a > cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or > a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or > contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted > to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the > date such litigation is filed.[1] > > Note that this only terminates the patent rights if you claim that the > work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringment... which > effectively uses the patents covered within the work to protect the > freeness of the work itself. I would like to second this clause; it is an effective protection against patent issues, without being too broad. Limiting the clause to actual allegations of patent infringement in the Work is indeed the key point. - Josh Triplett signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestions of David Nusinow, was: RPSL and DFSG-compliance - choice of venue
On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 03:39:01AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jul 2004, David Nusinow wrote: > > This is going to sound really bad, and I'm not trying to stir up > > trouble in saying this, but perhaps the guidelines need weakening? > > So we should be willing to give up more of the freedom that we now > need in order to have a work in Debian? Perhaps. It seems that a number of people want this. I'm simply raising the question as a possibility. > > current interpretation of freedom is more restrictive than that of > > the FSF, > > It's not that we're more restrictive than the FSF. It's almost exactly > the opposite. We're more expansive with the freedoms that we > require. In many cases we've decided that specific freedoms are > important, and the FSF has decided that being pragmatic is better than > retaining the freedom. The issue though is that the project as a whole has agreed to the freedoms guaranteed by the DFSG, but specific interpretations that aren't clear from the DFSG are being used in conjunction with the DFSG itself. These specific freedoms haven't necessarily been agreed to by the rest of the project, which is why Steve and I have suggested actually attempting to take the step and see if the project really does agree with them. It might be that the majority of the project isn't so far from the FSF. Note that I'm not placing forth my own opinion on the subject one way or another really so much as advocating a real communication where I only see a large split right now. Perhaps modifying the DFSG isn't the best way to go about this (and it's definitely the last thing that I'd resort to) but it should not be ruled out all together. > > I echo his point that this probably needs to be justified. > > In all of the cases to date, where we've gone against the > interpretation of the FSF, we've done so with very careful > justification of the reasoning behind our difference in opinion, and > how that springs from the DFSG. > > The few thousand messages on the GFDL are a reasonable example of the > process of justification that we have gone through. If there's one thing I would never accuse the participants of this list of, it's lack of care and thoroughness. My real concern is simply to allow these carefully formed conclusions to reflect the will of the project as a whole. - David Nusinow
