Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. You know, beyond the initial offensiveness, this is actually a pretty remarkable statement. In 2006, we had: - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL which pulled a decision out of thin air, ignoring problems = not fun. In any case, wasn't that before the 2006-7 DPL term? - a resolution of the licensing problems preventing us from distributing Java at all, including, eventually, legal advice via SPI to that effect I think this is about Java-in-non-free? Non-free is not fun IMO and that happened as a fire-first, ignore policy about asking on debian-legal and get legal advice later, which is also not fun. - DFSG-free updates to creative commons licenses where CC decided to tell us what debian believes. Not fun, but when the DPL shows such contempt, why wouldn't CC? - new draft of the GFDL resolving Debian's other concerns A draft does not fix bugs. Maybe it will do when released. FSF missed various due dates, but DPL was curiously silent. Not fun. That draft is still in the terrible FSF Web-2.Null comments system, which is also not fun. - a resolution on how we approach sourceless firmware where we agreed to ignore some bugs, didn't we? Necessary, but not fun for most people. - Java licensed under the GPL Announced and praised, but not done in 2006. Not fun. - a recommendation to SPI on a free copyright license and more free trademark handling for our logos that's since been acted on, and is now just pending an announcement by the DPL Still pending. Still not fun. All of those have been causing problems for Debian users for years; if you don't find getting actual solutions to those sorts of legal issues fun, maybe you're in the wrong business. *Actual* solutions instead of the above mix of pending, announced, draft possible/maybe *future* solutions might have been fun. If anyone found the above events fun, that's disappointing if not surprising. If a DPL thinks all of the above were actual solutions, they're definitely in the wrong business! Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:38:20PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. You know, beyond the initial offensiveness, this is actually a pretty remarkable statement. In 2006, we had: - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL - a resolution of the licensing problems preventing us from distributing Java at all, including, eventually, legal advice via SPI to that effect - DFSG-free updates to creative commons licenses - new draft of the GFDL resolving Debian's other concerns - a resolution on how we approach sourceless firmware - Java licensed under the GPL - a recommendation to SPI on a free copyright license and more free trademark handling for our logos that's since been acted on, and is now just pending an announcement by the DPL All of those have been causing problems for Debian users for years; if you don't find getting actual solutions to those sorts of legal issues fun, maybe you're in the wrong business. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:17:10 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] In 2006, we had: - a resolution on the DFSG-free status of the GFDL Where the winning option legislated without *any explanation* that the DFSG issues of the GFDL (except for the invariant-like ones) do not exist. This resolution is doing more harm than good: it has been misinterpreted by many people as Debian states the GFDL is OK, it sent a signal to FSF that there's no real need to fix those issues with the GFDL as they are considered acceptable anyway, it poses serious logical problems when one tries to reconcile its result with the DFSG, people has already tried to use it as a precedent to allow other non-free restrictions into main, ... See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00098.html - a resolution of the licensing problems preventing us from distributing Java at all, including, eventually, legal advice via SPI to that effect Resolution? Do you mean a GR, a vote? Am I missing anything? I don't recall any vote on this issue... Moreover the DLJ license affair was, IMHO, handled quite badly: every decision seemed to have been taken behind closed doors by very few people and communicated publicly only when it was too late for providing suggestions and advice. I was really worried by all that accepting licenses with contradictory FAQs and non-legally-binding clarifications. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/05/msg00064.html - DFSG-free updates to creative commons licenses Which we *did not* have, because CC licenses still fail to meet the DFSG, IMO. See the following threads: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00024.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00023.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00059.html - new draft of the GFDL resolving Debian's other concerns Which we *did not* have, since the first draft of the GFDL v2 does not solve all the GFDL issues which are not related to invariantness. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00123.html - a resolution on how we approach sourceless firmware Which decided to ignore this issue for the release of etch (despite the opposite promise made with GR-2004-004) and was not respected anyway. See bug: http://bugs.debian.org/412950 - Java licensed under the GPL Which could be seen as a positive effect of the DLJ mess, but it's still incomplete, AFAIUI. At least sun-java6 source package is still in the non-free archive, AFAICT. See http://packages.debian.org/unstable/source/sun-java6 http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/non-free/s/sun-java6/sun-java6_6-00-2/copyright - a recommendation to SPI on a free copyright license and more free trademark handling for our logos that's since been acted on, and is now just pending an announcement by the DPL Which actually *is* a little progress on the issue we were discussing in the present thread and is appreciated, as I said at the time. Unfortunately that move leaves the harder side of the issue (that is to say, trademark licensing) in a black-or-white situation (no trademark restrictions for one logo, non-free restrictions for the other logo), which is suboptimal. See the following thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/02/msg00012.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpUXOfPwoWLc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Gosh, what fun it is to trade pointless insults on a mailing list. I feared that was your view. Roll on list-admins. [...] This was, of course, more than you ever did to help define a trademark policy, which consisted of complaining that nobody was doing anything, then not providing any support when anyone was doing anything. TTBOMK, I've complained that it's taking a long time to progress, not that nobody was doing anything. I offered support to at least two of the drafters, but drafters seem to go AWOL after the first public draft (or one even seems to have gone before). There has been a succession of attempts to create a policy, in different forums and requested by different people - I now know of five unfinished attempts in the last three years and I suspect there were probably more before that. Did the drafters know of those that went before? Maybe they didn't get the briefing or support they needed from the project leaders? So I suggest the problem is not in defining or DD support, but in management or communication. Now I'm trying to connect the various lists that should be communicating about this (spi-board, spi-trademark, debian-legal, debian-project among them) to help this complete, but I'm very cautious about treading on toes, because I know I hold a minority view on this and I know how frustrating it is for an interested party to be mistakenly excluded from this sort of process. I'm well aware that my views on trademarks (available to all, harmable by none) are not the consensus view, so I probably shouldn't draft this policy. Another reason is my bloody terrible record on GR drafting in general, although I think that's partly an artefact of something else. Why no elected leader yet has led this thing that sorely needs leadership is beyond me. Some leaders who should have been managing this drafting seemed keener on money than this irreplaceable asset. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Le mercredi 27 juin 2007 à 17:38 +0100, Anthony Towns a écrit : I think MJ Ray's contributions to -legal and SPI actively discourage other people from contributing That's true, most of his posts save me a lot of time because I don't have to bother writing things he already explained much better than I would have. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] but when either group purports to be stating official Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy, that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list and the goals of the project. But, despite writing that lists can't be assigned blame, here we go again! The *group* attacks the policy-makers, does it? Where? *It's a mailing list.* It doesn't get pissed off, it doesn't get happy, it doesn't get sad, it doesn't laugh at your jokes... it just resends emails! For the avoidance of doubt, -legal didn't attack aj for making not much progress on the debian trademark as DPL, or for the SPI board he advised failing to consider the trademark policies its trademark committee drafted. I did, and I give my opinion only, as mentioned in almost every sig and web site I post. I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. The most significant progress seemed to be the delegation of trademark and copyright instruction to Branden Robinson (which I linked in the summary), but then those things seemed to return to DPL control again somehow. Has the delegation ended or what? Probably the simplest way forwards is to post the four policies drafted so far, then choose between them, with any minor amendments. I'll check whether I can make the fourth one public and then do that. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 09:59:50AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] but when either group purports to be stating official Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy, that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list and the goals of the project. But, despite writing that lists can't be assigned blame, here we go again! The *group* attacks the policy-makers, does it? I'm sorry, it would have been more correct to have written members of either group purport to be stating official Debian policy, or start attacking the people who do make such policy, and treating their membership in the group as sufficient qualification to be issuing authoritative statements on behalf of the project, it becomes actively harmful to the purposes of this list and the goals of the project. I think the Anthony Towns DPLship was not a fun time for those trying to fix legal bugs and it should have been ended sooner. I think MJ Ray's contributions to -legal and SPI actively discourage other people from contributing, and that effect is probably more harmful to the goals of the project than his contributions are beneficial. Gosh, what fun it is to trade pointless insults on a mailing list. The most significant progress seemed to be the delegation of trademark and copyright instruction to Branden Robinson (which I linked in the summary), but then those things seemed to return to DPL control again somehow. Unfortunately Branden didn't do anything following the initial draft of the wiki page, so I continued the work from there, as is recorded in the video of the lca miniconf and mails to the -project list. This was, of course, more than you ever did to help define a trademark policy, which consisted of complaining that nobody was doing anything, then not providing any support when anyone was doing anything. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:38:20 +0100 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] I think MJ Ray's contributions to -legal and SPI actively discourage other people from contributing, and that effect is probably more harmful to the goals of the project than his contributions are beneficial. I disagree: I have seldom, if ever, felt discouraged by MJ Ray's actions from contributing to debian-legal. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpPirFqx6y7l.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 09:47:34AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's likewise nice to see we're back to -legal not being a mailing list, but an unconstituted advisory body that manages to be a responsible body, somehow. Yeesh. The distinction above is clearly being made for sarcastic purpose. I still don't understand it, though. Can you please, as DPL, explain what point is being made here? Outside the context of this discussion about trademarks. What do *you*, as DPL, think debian-legal should be, and how is it currently different to that ideal? I'm not DPL any more, but fortunately I've responded to that in the past, including while DPL: ] [...] debian-legal is a useful source of advice, not a ] decision making body. That's precisely as it should be, since there ] is absolutely no accountability for anyone on debian-legal -- anyone, ] developer or not, who agrees with the social contract or not, can reply ] to queries raised on this list with their own opinion. If people have ] weighed the costs and benefits of contacting -legal and decided not to, ] that's entirely their choice. -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2006/06/msg00286.html -legal is a mailing list; it doesn't have opinions or any authority, and hasn't any form of formal delegation or membership, and as a consequence has no accountability. It can't be assigned blame for anything, because it's not an entity with any responsibility or accountability. What it does have is a bunch of intelligent involved people who're willing to spend their time offering useful advice. Which is great -- but advice isn't the same as answers or decisions, and in the context of -legal it's often mistaken for that. The SPI trademarks committee has similar issues, in that it's membership is defined as whoever's subscribed to the mailing list [0] and a lack of any ability to do anything more than propose new policy for other people to review. Again, in so far as both groups are only offering advice and suggestions, that's fine -- but when either group purports to be stating official Debian policy, or starts attacking the people who do make such policy, that becomes actively harmful to the purpose of this list and the goals of the project. Cheers, aj [0] http://www.spi-inc.org/secretary/committees.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL's view of debian-legal (was: Debian Trademarks Summary)
Ben Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...stuff...] What do *you*, as DPL, think debian-legal should be, and how is it currently different to that ideal? [...] Please check your facts before posting: aj is not DPL since 2007-04-17. http://www.au.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_001 His answers may be interesting as an ftpmaster, but as I understand it from the log, he's not usually handling NEW and isn't the only ftpmaster handling moves, so his strange ideas aren't fatal. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
