Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project

[David Prévot]

Hi,

Le 12/04/2012 12:22, Moray Allan a écrit :
> Phil wrote:
>> Le 12/04/2012 08:08, Gerfried Fuchs a écrit :

>>>  Maybe I'm too picky, and you can base it on me not being a native
>>> speaker - but then, most people that will read it might be non-native
>>> speakers.

>> If it is deemed that the clarification is needed, then […]

> If an extra word is really needed then perhaps it should be "we
> equally value and encourage"?

If the issue is only for non native readers, an other way to address the
concern is to help proofreading translations in every language we
understand, in order to make sure the statement will be available for
non English readers, with a quality that matches the one granted by this
active thread.

I'd like to thank Francesca for proposing this statement and taking care
of the various remarks, and everyone involved.

Regards

David




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project

[Moray Allan]

Phil wrote:
> If it is deemed that the clarification is needed, then adding 'too' is
> not the way to do it -- instead we could go for:
>
>  adding 'also' after 'we':
>
>    ... technical in nature, we also value and encourage contributions ...
>
>  or perhaps adding 'as well' where you were suggesting 'too':
>
>    ... with expertise in other areas as well, ...
>
> I think I prefer the first.

I agree with that preference (and with either being better than "too").

But any of these can be read more easily than the previous version as
demoting non-technical contributions back to something second-class,
if we only value them "in addition to" technical ones.

If an extra word is really needed then perhaps it should be "we
equally value and encourage"?

-- 
Moray


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CAHWF6ZMjg-6p0Z3O2Ogk23Aw2jW=1mzvdyhemk+wz0qakng...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[dE .]

On 04/12/12 20:53, Ben Hutchings wrote:

On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:59 +0530, dE . wrote:

On 04/12/12 19:53, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 à 19:07 +0530, dE . a écrit :

[...]

As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such
software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to
the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a
restriction of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US
should be faced with such inconvenience.

And for at least the 15th too, this is not a US-only problem (although
the US patent office is known to do a much worse job than others at
checking for validity of submitted patents).

[...]

And what're you going to do if some MS geek comes up notifying you about
some patent infringement in the the Linux kernel code? I'm talking about
disaster management here.

We don't have to carry on such a conversation, or take what they say on
face value.

Ben.



Reality is no one wants to target a non-profit organization, doing so is 
suicide for the company, even MS doesn't have the guts to do so; 
everyone owes non-profit organizations so no one wants to make them 
unhappy by directly targeting them.


Anyway, thanks for clarifying.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f86f860.5000...@gmail.com

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 19:59 +0530, dE . wrote:
> On 04/12/12 19:53, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 à 19:07 +0530, dE . a écrit :
[...]
> >> As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such
> >> software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to
> >> the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a
> >> restriction of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US
> >> should be faced with such inconvenience.
> > And for at least the 15th too, this is not a US-only problem (although
> > the US patent office is known to do a much worse job than others at
> > checking for validity of submitted patents).
[...]
> And what're you going to do if some MS geek comes up notifying you about 
> some patent infringement in the the Linux kernel code? I'm talking about 
> disaster management here.

We don't have to carry on such a conversation, or take what they say on
face value.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project

[Philip Hands]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:08:32 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs  wrote:
> * Stefano Zacchiroli  [2012-04-09 14:02:02 CEST]:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:28:58PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> > > So, I wrote a draft - mainly based on the one [4] created for Ubuntu
> > > by Matt Zimmerman with the help of Mary Gardiner, Valerie Aurora 
> > > and Benjamin Mako Hill - and I'd like to propose it to the DPL to be
> > > official published.
> > > But I'd also like to have some inputs from you all, on it.
> > 
> > Dear all,
> >   here is a wrap-up (of the wrap-up (of the...)) that Francesca has just
> > shared with me based on the last feedback on list.
> > 
> > 
> > The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
> > 
> > It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
> > we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> > interact constructively with our community.
> > 
> > While much of the work for our project is technical in nature, we value
> > and encourage contributions from those with expertise in other areas,
> > and welcome them into our community.
> > 
> 
>  Shouldn't there be a "too" added after "in other areas", my first
> thought was "we don't value contributions in the technical area?" when
> reading this.

It strikes me as unnecessary, but as you say, maybe that's because I
think it's being implied (as a native speaker), and non-natives will
perceive it differently.

If it is deemed that the clarification is needed, then adding 'too' is
not the way to do it -- instead we could go for:

  adding 'also' after 'we':

... technical in nature, we also value and encourage contributions ...
  
  or perhaps adding 'as well' where you were suggesting 'too':

... with expertise in other areas as well, ...

I think I prefer the first.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND


pgpEa1InQ5eyR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[dE .]

On 04/12/12 19:53, Josselin Mouette wrote:

Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 à 19:07 +0530, dE . a écrit :

I'm very much unhappy with the policies put down here, looking at the
amount of patents Microsoft is holding, it making developing any
software a challenge; that results in the Debian repos being
--emtpy--.

For the - at least - 15th time, this is NOT what the position means. No
software in Debian is *known* to be infringing on Microsoft patents.
Regardless of the claims of either Microsoft or the morons at
boycottnovell.


As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such
software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to
the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a
restriction of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US
should be faced with such inconvenience.

And for at least the 15th too, this is not a US-only problem (although
the US patent office is known to do a much worse job than others at
checking for validity of submitted patents).



Conditions in North Korea, Singapore and Japan are much better... and it 
appears if challenged by a major party, the laws may change.


And what're you going to do if some MS geek comes up notifying you about 
some patent infringement in the the Linux kernel code? I'm talking about 
disaster management here.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f86e6cd.8060...@gmail.com

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[Josselin Mouette]

Le jeudi 12 avril 2012 à 19:07 +0530, dE . a écrit :
> I'm very much unhappy with the policies put down here, looking at the
> amount of patents Microsoft is holding, it making developing any
> software a challenge; that results in the Debian repos being
> --emtpy--.

For the - at least - 15th time, this is NOT what the position means. No
software in Debian is *known* to be infringing on Microsoft patents.
Regardless of the claims of either Microsoft or the morons at
boycottnovell.

> As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such
> software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to
> the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a
> restriction of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US
> should be faced with such inconvenience.

And for at least the 15th too, this is not a US-only problem (although
the US patent office is known to do a much worse job than others at
checking for validity of submitted patents).

-- 
 .''`.  Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
  `-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334240638.3950.135.camel@pi0307572

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[dE .]

On 04/12/12 07:37, Filipus Klutiero wrote:

Hi,
in February, Stefano Zacchiroli added a document titled "Debian 
Position on Software Patents" to our website: 
http://www.debian.org/legal/patent


This document includes both a position and a policy regarding software 
patents. It states:



1.

Debian will not knowingly distribute software encumbered by
patents; Debian contributors should not package or distribute
software they know to infringe a patent.

2.

Debian will not accept a patent license that is inconsistent with
the Debian Social Contract
 or Debian Free Software
Guidelines .

3.

Unless communications related to patents are subject to
attorney-client privilege, community members may be forced to
produce them in a lawsuit. Also, patent concerns expressed
publicly may turn out to be unfounded but create a good deal of
fear, uncertainty, and doubt in the meantime. Therefore, please
refrain from posting patent concerns publicly or discussing
patents outside of communication with legal counsel, where they
are subject to attorney-client privilege.

4.

Patent risks affect the entire community. If you are concerned
about a specific patent, please do not keep it to yourself ---
notify legal counsel.

5.

All communication related to specific patent risk should be
directed to pate...@debian.org , which
is maintained under the rules of attorney-client privilege. The
risk will be evaluated and any necessary response will be made
directly to affected parties.



As far as I know, this document was not publically discussed before 
being published (see 
http://anonscm.debian.org/viewvc/webwml/webwml/english/legal/patent.wml?view=log 
and http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00117.html ).


I see this as amounting to:

 1. A message to both users and contributors that patent infringement
in Debian is unwanted.
 2. A message to both users and contributors that Debian will only
accept to ship software covered by patents if the patents
concerned were licensed free of restrictions (DFSG-like requirements).
 3. A request to share specific patent concerns.
 4. An indication that a private contact point for sharing specific
patent concerns exists.
 5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues
do not share their concerns, except with the contact point
mentioned in 3.


1. is fairly obvious. 2. is welcome, although I suppose this is just 
officializing a stance we were already taking. 3. can be considered a 
specific case of our pretty obvious desire to have our bugs reported. 
4. is excellent news. 5. is, however, anti-transparency, and IMO 
against our ethics. Such a position statement cannot be made prior to 
discussion. Since it looks like this wasn't discussed yet, I am hereby 
lauching a public discussion on 5. This is not a poll, but I'd like to 
see the opinions of others on it. and whether it is unanimous or not.


Leaving the validity of 5. aside, I find that this document is very 
confusing. It's not just a policy, and it's talking to several groups. 
I suggest:


  * To separe 1. , 3. and 4. from the rest. These could be grouped in
a document on intellectual property explaining that Debian takes
into account both copyright and patents and offering contact
points for reporting/discussing specific IP issues.
  * To consider merging 2. with the social contract:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
The free software guidelines could be modified to specify that our
freedom requirements apply not only to copyright licenses, but
also to patent licenses.
A modification of a Foundation Document requires a 3:1 majority,
but I don't think this would be hard to reach.


Thanks to MJ Ray for his reply when I asked about this document's origins.


I'm very much unhappy with the policies put down here, looking at the 
amount of patents Microsoft is holding, it making developing any 
software a challenge; that results in the Debian repos being --emtpy--.


As a result I suggest, restricting the download and hosting of such 
software in the US.. since software patents practically only apply to 
the US, and until such laws are removed (which's basically a restriction 
of what you write in a text editor), the people of the US should be 
faced with such inconvenience.

Re: Diversity statement for the Debian Project

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Stefano Zacchiroli  [2012-04-09 14:02:02 CEST]:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 02:28:58PM +0100, Francesca Ciceri wrote:
> > So, I wrote a draft - mainly based on the one [4] created for Ubuntu
> > by Matt Zimmerman with the help of Mary Gardiner, Valerie Aurora 
> > and Benjamin Mako Hill - and I'd like to propose it to the DPL to be
> > official published.
> > But I'd also like to have some inputs from you all, on it.
> 
> Dear all,
>   here is a wrap-up (of the wrap-up (of the...)) that Francesca has just
> shared with me based on the last feedback on list.
> 
> 
> The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone.
> 
> It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others perceive you:
> we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone as long as they
> interact constructively with our community.
> 
> While much of the work for our project is technical in nature, we value
> and encourage contributions from those with expertise in other areas,
> and welcome them into our community.
> 

 Shouldn't there be a "too" added after "in other areas", my first
thought was "we don't value contributions in the technical area?" when
reading this.

 Maybe I'm too picky, and you can base it on me not being a native
speaker - but then, most people that will read it might be non-native
speakers.

 Thanks for a very good aproach and great statement. :)
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los  |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los|


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120412120832.ga22...@anguilla.debian.or.at

Re: Debian "Position" on Software Patents

[MJ Ray]

Filipus Klutiero wrote:
>  5. A request/demand that people concerned with specific patent issues
> do not share their concerns, except with the contact point mentioned
> in 3.
> 
> [...] 5. is, however, anti-transparency, and IMO against 
> our ethics. Such a position statement cannot be made prior to 
> discussion. Since it looks like this wasn't discussed yet, I am hereby 
> lauching a public discussion on 5. This is not a poll, but I'd like to 
> see the opinions of others on it. and whether it is unanimous or not.

As I wrote in http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/02/msg00129.html
I think it was discussed, so the above claim is a bit off, but
a public discussion might be enlightening anyway.

Also, can the DPL really not just issue this position statement
as a "decision for whom noone else has responsibility"?  I'm
pretty sure the DPL procedure (such as it is) was followed: that
zack solicited views and made a decision he felt to be consistent
with the consensus.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with point 5, but I think I'm living in
a country where legislation prohibits software patents and there isn't
a specific increase in punishment if you might have read emails form a
third party about a possible patent infringement (but I could be
wrong).  I think the request to focus patent topics on one contact
point is to protect less fortunate developers: there are some, aren't
there?  In the USA with its crazy anti-free-enterprise software patent
madness?

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 debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sihlk-00061z...@petrol.towers.org.uk