Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Heya, I second the Amendment fully quoted below. Marc Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. pgpUVVkMHkV0c.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:30:45AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, Adeodato's amendment is clear in its explanation that we believe that the GFDL does meet the spirit of the DFSG (so long as you have no invariant sections). [...] This argument-to-the-spirit is interesting: it is the claim that Debian should accept works where we believe that the intention of the license is satisfactory, even if the actual letter of the license is not and we have no clarification from the copyright holder. Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Sim?? wrote: So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. As per A.1(3) I don't accept this amendment to the original proposal, so it should be voted on separately, presuming it gets enough sponsors. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- That said, seconded; I'm not sure at the moment whether I prefer this over my original proposal or not, but I do think the above's clear and justifiable, and worthy of the project. I expect I'll be calling for a vote when this proposal gets sufficient seconds, unless someone else beats me to it. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the Amendment fully quoted below. On Thursday 09 February 2006 06:26, Adeodato Simó wrote: Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- pgpwjCndyQ0Gz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- Seconded. Aníbal Monsalve Salazar -- .''`. Debian GNU/Linux : :' : Free Operating System `. `' http://debian.org/ `- http://v7w.com/anibal signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
seconded (again). also sprach Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006.02.09.0626 +0100]: Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona! -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas» -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP (sub)keys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! auch der mutigste von uns hat nur selten den mut zu dem, was er eigentlich weiß. - friedrich nietzsche signature.asc Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Adeodato Simó wrote: Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. I second it. Cheers, Moritz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Seconded. On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Ara que ets la meva dona, te la fotré fins a la melsa, bacona! -- Borja Álvaro a Miranda Boronat en «Chulas y famosas» -- 1024D/E65A7801 Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] 92ED 94E4 B1E6 3624 226D 5727 4453 008B E65A 7801 CCs of replies from mailing lists are requested. There are mushrooms that can survive weeks, months without air or food. They just dry out and when water comes back, they wake up again. And call the helldesk about their password expiring. -- after Jens Benecke and Tanuki the Raccoon-dog, in ASR: signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) Uh ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Debian doesn't have courts. The closest we've got is debian-legal, The closest thing to courts we have are DPL, TC, DAM, FTP masters and the Project Secretary. They have a final decision making power that effectively resolves any disputes among the developers. debian-legal is just an advisory board for them. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a very good example of the silliness it leads to. You won't be surprised to see the same fundamentalists as involved in debian-legal crusades. I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Seconded. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote: I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)
GFDL GR, vote please!
Dear Mr Secretary, Can we have a vote please, kind sir? To my knowledge, the proposal and related amendments are: Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proposed by: Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsors: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] Roger Leigh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proposed by: Adeodato Simo [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsors: Pierre Habouzit [EMAIL PROTECTED] Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Isaac Clerencia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Martin F Krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Zephaniah E. Hull [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Proposed by: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sponsors: Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] Romain Francoise [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moritz Muehlenhoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Craig Sanders [EMAIL PROTECTED] The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from the 26th of January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4). I haven't followed all the twists and turns of discussion over the past few weeks, but as I understand it the original proposal and Adeodato's updated amendment should require a simple majority, while Anton's amendment will require a 3:1 supermajority to pass (due to implicitly changing a foundation document). Based on this, as per A.2(3), I think the form of the ballot should be: [ ] Choice 1: GFDL is unsuitable for main in all cases [ ] Choice 2: GFDL is unsuitable for main only when unmodifiable sections present [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1] [ ] Choice 4: Further discussion It's probably a little bit hard for folks to find the most important bits from the discussion we've had -- since there's been a lot of stuff on -vote recently, and a lot more of the discussion has been on -legal over the past few years -- so I think it'd be good to have some sort of brief QA. I've had a brief chat with Adeodato, and it seems like sometime Sunday evening UTC might be suitable, with logs (and any further rebuttal) going up shortly after that. The theory is to give anyone who'd like a little more information a chance to get that in a concise way before they vote. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: It's probably a little bit hard for folks to find the most important bits from the discussion we've had -- since there's been a lot of stuff on -vote recently, and a lot more of the discussion has been on -legal over the past few years -- so I think it'd be good to have some sort of brief QA. Would it be possible that the proposal amendment submitters could agree on some text to go along with the call for votes (linked from the ballot, for example), giving a summary and the key arguments (with links to threads) for each side? I think such a brief summary would benefit a lot of people who cannot spare the time to read all associated text. The QA can then either find hiatusses in this summary and improve it, or if it is held before such summary is written, can act as a foundation for it (maybe it'll prove possible to write this summary live during the QA). A key point in getting a popular vote on some issue is, after all, having the electorate adequately informed about the contents of it. In Debian it's hardly ever a problem of lacking discussion, but nevertheless the problem exists in a different form -- lacking an 'exutive' summary of the discussion. Thank you for considering this, --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources) The usual suspects from time to time have already been trying to start an images madness on [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you care about Debian, please contribute sane ideas to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Simon Richter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Did you ask FSF what they think about this situation? -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ?
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, Xavier Roche wrote: I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources) It's not about us being holier than Stallman. It's about Stallman not caring that his new license is creating real world problems for everyone but the FSF because only the FSF has permission to relicense their stuff. The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following: 2006/2/8, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still nothing* to say that we can't happily pass GRs that contradict each other. It would be foolish, sure, and perhaps reflect poorly on our ability to work through these things, but democracies pass laws like that the whole time and the courts seem to manage to resolve the contradictions. Debian has no courts to resolve contradictions. No-one has the authority to rule one way or the other. So we have to decide now, before the vote, if there is a contradiction or not. Since there is disagreement here already, we have a difficulty. There are democracies that work this way. In some countries, courts cannot rule a law unconstitutional because that is the role of parliament. If the legislature says it's constitutional, it is. Contradictions are solved by the legislature. The point being that courts apply the law, but do not create it. Back to the issue at hand. Given the only source of authority considered by debian is the developers themselves, what we need to do is draft a GR as follows (I think Manoj suggested something like this): If there is a belief that a GR contradicts the foundations documents, this contradiction can be resolved by: 1. The project secretary 2. A majority vote 3. A 3:1 supermajority vote 4. The project leader. 5. The technical committee 6. Debian-legal The only other possibility is to add a second option to every possible vote asking developers to say whether they think this requires a supermajority or not. Or commually binding arbitration system to sort this out. I hope this doesn't go that far. Note that the alternative to this process is for someone (usually a General, it seems) to stand up and tell the parliament not to be so damn silly, and to follow his interpretation of the constitution, or else. This usually ends badly for all concerned. We have no courts, so what's the alternative? If we get a super-majority of developers to say a majority is enough, we're home. If a majority of developers say a majority is enough, what does that mean? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Xavier Roche wrote: On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 11:12 +0100, Xavier Roche a écrit : Maybe we could suggest another editorial change and revert to the previous wording (not everything is software) This has already been voted. And the answer was no. Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the amendment quoted below. Christopher Martin On Thursday 09 February 2006 00:26, Adeodato Simó wrote: Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. pgp2RVIWyx89g.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
I second the amendment quoted below. On Wednesday 08 February 2006 22:26, Adeodato Simó wrote: Hello, After my amendment to the GFDL GR was accepted, there was a bit of discussion about the majority requirement that should be put on it. In a nutshell, this is what happened: - in what may have been a bad decision but seemed appropriate at the time, I wrote the amendment from a Position Statement point of view, and concentrated on what we'd be doing, and overlooked being particularly clear on the internals of such actions. - the Secretary's best judgment was that the wording implied a modification of the Social Contract (an exception is being made for some non-free works), and thus in fulfillment of his duties put a 3:1 majority requirement on the amendment. - several people expressed the view that they interpreted the wording differently, as in it states that some GFDL-licensed works meet the DFSG, and thus are suitable for main, for which a 1:1 majority would be enough. - the Secretary expressed his willingness to adjust the majority requirement if the wording of the amendment was corrected to remove the ambiguity; this is where we are now. So here's a revised version of the original amendment, which Manoj has ACK'ed, and for which I expect to receive soon the necessary ACKs from my original seconders (CC'ed) so that it can replace the previous one. Apart from clarifying the wording of paragraph 2, I've dropped the Problems of the GFDL section, which results in a much more brief and straightforward statement. All the relevant information about the invariant sections problem is in the first paragraph anyway, and I don't see much point in carrying details about the other two issues, when they don't affect us at all. (This has been discussed elsewhere, but if somebody does still have concerns over the DRM clause, or the Transparent Copies one, I guess we can go over them again.) Thanks. ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- -- Wesley J. Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] xmpp:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2 pgpVnSJb9DD0U.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists, only. I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. Then do so. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Re: Adeodato Simó in [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---8--- Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. ---8--- Seconded. Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! A lot of us thought it was far and beyond editorial, which is why GR 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the editorial one). -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
to, 2006-02-09 kello 15:13 +0100, Xavier Roche kirjoitti: On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: Well, maybe the wording was not deceptive enough ? Maybe people should get re-acquinted with GR 2004-04 and its results before they bring up GR 2004-03, even for jokes. No, no. The funny joke is to modify the constitution with a deceptive wording, with 214 votes out of 911 developpers. Please stop abusing that horse. We're running out of glue. -- Fundamental truth #2: Attitude is usually more important than skills. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Xavier Roche [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, J=E9r=F4me Marant wrote: I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is. I fully agree. The Holier than Stallman stuff is really getting ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness. [...] Stallman is amazingly arbitrary and illogical about manuals and invariant sections, ignoring Moglen's advice that we can't rely on distinguishing bitstreams for deciding what freedoms are important. I welcome debian's consistent approach: if it's in main, it should follow the DFSG (at least in spirit as far as possible), no matter what sort of software it is (programs, manuals, and so on). Stallman tries to redefine software=programs and many follow. It's not about holier than Stallman but about what we understand as software. Just programs for PCs, programs for everything (inc. firmware), or computerised creative work in general? Software is a wider group than programs: if you know esperanto, software is programaroj rather than programoj. Unfortunately, similar arguments seem to happen for many languages, including French: do programme and logiciel differ for computers? The FSF promotion of the FDL looks like a fairly obvious example of working against FSF's aim, but I don't know their precise objective. FDL looks like a fairly cynical attempt to create an adware licence acceptable to legacy dead-tree publishers and few of them seem to use it. Someone mentioned the encyclopedia problem where including an invariant section on a topic prevents text being reused in a manual about that topic: that's just one of the more obvious problems. I believe the debates about program copyrights, computer-stored music, video and so on are essentially the same. The same freedoms fit. -- 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: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Wednesday 08 February 2006 23:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not? I think that it is possible for people to disagree about such a question, and it seems crazy to me to say that anytime they disagree, it can be settled by majority vote. A vote after extensive public debate, I might add. If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? Apparently you think our Secretary is up to the task. But if in some hypothetical distant future Debian were to acquire a Secretary with a rather different interpretation of the DFSG - say one radically different from the interpretation which you yourself believe to be so utterly self-evident - would you be quite so happy then? Because ultimately this is a question of Debian's constitution, and of legitimacy. The constitution does not endow the Secretary with the power to interpret the DFSG. It does grant the Secretary limited power to adjudicate in small disputes of constitutional interpretation, but the DFSG is not the constitution. I think it wholly appropriate that when there is a dispute over DFSG interpretation of major importance the developers should vote. I believe this to be in keeping with both the letter and the spirit of the constitution. While I may not always agree with the decision that results from a vote, I respect it far more than an Olympian decree. Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. They were about changes to our foundation documents. You believe them to have been about the GFDL only because, again, you believe that the GFDL's unfreeness follows with inescapable obviousness from those changes, but that is clearly not a view which everyone holds. That some people had the GFDL in mind when crafting the editorial changes is their problem, not the Project's problem. I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. No, we'd like the issue settled in a _legitimate_ fashion. And I take umbrage at your insinuations. If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them. Christopher Martin pgpdrQeDtU2pI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: [...] Debian and the GNU Free Documentation License = This is the position of the Debian Project about the GNU Free Documentation License as published by the Free Software Foundation: 1. We consider that the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 conflicts with traditional requirements for free software, since it allows for non-removable, non-modifiable parts to be present in documents licensed under it. Such parts are commonly referred to as invariant sections, and are described in Section 4 of the GFDL. As modifiability is a fundamental requirement of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, this restriction is not acceptable for us, and we cannot accept in our distribution works that include such unmodifiable content. 2. At the same time, we also consider that works licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License that include no invariant sections do fully meet the requirements of the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This means that works that don't include any Invariant Sections, Cover Texts, Acknowledgements, and Dedications (or that do, but permission to remove them is explicitly granted), are suitable for the main component of our distribution. 3. Despite the above, GFDL'd documentation is still not free of trouble, even for works with no invariant sections: as an example, it is incompatible with the major free software licenses, which means that GFDL'd text can't be incorporated into free programs. For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional shouldn't this line end like or _under_ any of the traditional? free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. That being said, I second this proposal (with or without that fix). Originally I thought the DRM and transparent requirements were problematic, but the discussion in the thread sparked by Anton's amendment has convinced me that these are nothing more than just technicalities, with no serious real-life impact. The same, however, cannot be said about invariant sections. -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right mess. Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring there is no contradiction. In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single person declaring there is a contradiction here. Even if that single person, by constitutional decree, is the one who Adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution (note, the constitution--not the DFSG, which is a foundation document but not the same thing as the constitution). -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, Ashes to Ashes, stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR: Amendment: invariant-less in main v2
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:08 AM On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:26:27AM +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: [...] For this reason, we encourage documentation authors to license their works (or dual-license, together with the GFDL) under the same terms as the software they refer to, or any of the traditional shouldn't this line end like or _under_ any of the traditional? free software licenses like the the GPL or the BSD license. Nope, the lack of a second under is fine (in en_GB, at least). The use of license as both a noun and a verb, otoh, is an en_USism. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What makes this entirely disgusting, is that the bees have extremely large overlap with the toads; the wasps with the frogs. I'm not sure about it, of course just because I'm a toad and a wasp. And then, has nobody ever raised the rumor that the purpose of this GFDL is non-free hullaboo is just to make sure that we will have our non-free section, for ever? I'm going to do something sensible now, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1] I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG First, the whole text of my proposal talks entirely about the current DFSG. Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision Anton Zinoviev signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:39:17PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do whatever we want with it. The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to adapt it to various needs and to improve it. It would probably be a good idea if you would not try to characterize other people's positions that you don't agree with, since you are mostly just getting them wrong. For example, I agree more with the latter definition than the former, but I think the GFDL is clearly non-free. This doesn't change the fact that there are people who have wrote many times in this list that the DFSG text must allow modifications should be interpreted as must allow arbitrary modifications. Yes, there are people like you who agree with the latter definition and consider GFDL non-free. Thats why I tried to show whenever I could why GFDL doesn't obstruct us to adapt the documents or to improve them. See for example http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/02/msg00226.html Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:46:16PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do whatever we want with it. The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to adapt it to various needs and to improve it. This is a false dilemma, of course. Moreover, if by various needs you mean an unspecified list, then these are the same. If you mean some specified list, then it is clear no such list exists at present in Debian, for you cannot point to any record of what is on the list and what is not. I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is desirable. What thoroughly disgusts me here is the following history: [ .. long history reminder skipped ... ] If you call me beer I am going to accept this as personal insult. You can see from the voting archives that I voted for the complete removal of non-free. You can also see that the main toad (the one who proposed to keep non-free) is also the author of the current proposal that GFDL is non-free. So your analogy is not well-founded. So, Anton, the developers *have*, in fact, voted on this very question twice already. Give it a rest. They have not. Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:47:21PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote: Hello, * Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:33:30AM +0200]: During the the discussions in this and the previous month it became clear there are two completely different notions of freedom among us. The first notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to do whatever we want with it. I don't think any debian developer seriously holds that opinion. Neither did I but I was proved wrong. It was insisted many times in this list that the text of DFSG (must allow modifications) means must allow arbitrary modifications. The second notion of freedom is: the work is free if we are allowed to adapt it to various needs and to improve it. The strong point of the first notion of freedom is that in every person there is a natural desire to be able to do whatever he wants. The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian. The problem with this second notion is that practical purposes is ill-defined. What do you mean by ill-defined? Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: A clarification for my interpretation of GFDL [was: Anton's amendment]
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:43:42AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: If the project secretary decides that my proposal (for GFDL) requires 3:1 supermajority, this would mean that the project secretary decides on behalf of the whole project that our notion of free software differs from the notion of FSF. This is not correct. The FSF, through RMS, has officially claimed that documentation does not need the same freedoms as programs, and furthermore has stated that the GFDL is not a free software license (they appear to be using software to mean programs). No, this is not correct. As most people FSF is using software to mean programs. This does not mean that FSF doesn't support the freedoms of the users to 1. read the documentation freely without any controll by technical means (DRM). 2. to change the documentation to suit their needs 3. to copy and distribute the documentation 4. to improve the documentation and to release the improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits You see that these are pretty much the same freedoms as the freedoms on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is desirable. So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents many modifications which serve practical purposes. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1 suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong. Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social contract or DFSG. It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. They can be trusted not to lie. They cannot be trusted never to make a mistake. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no] If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no] Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no] As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances we've had in the votes to date. This way we can postpone removing the non-free DFSG docs forever! We can just always think of a new issue to raise. I find this dishonorable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 12:12 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh a écrit : Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't editorial ! A lot of us thought it was far and beyond editorial, which is why GR 2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the editorial one). This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless? No, because the developers might want at some point to modify/override a foundation document, while acknowledging that they are doing so (i.e. they do not view it as an issue of interpretation, but expediency, or a need to adapt to changing circumstances, etc.). That would certainly require 3:1. Christopher Martin pgpPQxq7tE1cU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is desirable. So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents many modifications which serve practical purposes. Even if your assertion is true the following is also true: The prohibition to remove the invariant sections doesn't prevent modifications which are necessary for practical purposes, except for modifications that are prohibited by other free licenses also. We have already discussed many examples, if you have some new example you are welcome to share it with us. :-) Anton Zinoviev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil, stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side, right? Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. If a mere majority resolution can declare what the foundation documents mean, then the requirement of a supermajority is meaningless. Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a question. Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:19:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Anton Zinoviev [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I do not place limitations on various needs. Any modification that is not just subjective wish but serves some practical purpose is desirable. So, once more, the prohibition on removing invariant sections prevents many modifications which serve practical purposes. Even if your assertion is true the following is also true: The prohibition to remove the invariant sections doesn't prevent modifications which are necessary for practical purposes, except for modifications that are prohibited by other free licenses also. It does prohibit some modifications which are useful. Geez, reference cards. Useful! Docstrings. Useful! Not prohibited by other free licenses! Wow! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
Hi, I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over, which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb 25th. Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period. manoj -- Usage: fortune -P [-f] -a [xsz] Q: file [rKe9] -v6[+] file1 ... Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who should be trusted? So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. Why did we take the second vote? Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose, before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and over again? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [Christopher Martin] If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't agree with them. And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR 2004-03 being deceptive. (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.) Either astounding or depressing. Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I wonder. I don't recall anyone saying that. This makes the deception claim all the worse. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 15:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two votes were not about the GFDL. Why did we take the second vote? Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. That was _one_ reason people wanted to delay implementing it, yes, but that doesn't mean that the resolution implicitly endorsed the unfreeness of the GFDL. People may have voted to delay the changes because they agreed with their general spirit, but didn't want to engage in hashing out their full implications right before Sarge, whether they thought the GFDL fine or not; better simply to postpone the whole mess until latter. Now, we're having that debate, and a vote to clarify the ramifications of the editorial changes. I see no repitition, no refusal to accept what has been settled. What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Because nobody could _really_ believe that the GFDL is OK. It's just inconceivable! Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense. We're just a herd of dangerous idiots and renegades. Far safer to endow a known right-thinking (and for all intents and purposes permanent) official with the necessary power to keep Debian pure and tell the developers what they should think... Yes, a few people are still publically bitter about the way the editorial changes were handled, but so what. Just ignore them. They're not calling for a vote to overturn the editorial changes. As it turns out, a number of people who agreed with the editorial changes don't believe that it follows from them that the GFDL should be removed, or that the GFDL without invariant sections should be removed. We're now trying to assert that view, and a vote will decide whether we're a minority or not. Christopher Martin pgpw5iVjc0IZ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an implicit grant of permission? There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the above example is absurd, IMHO. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 16:41, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency without the guts to admit what they're doing. Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil, stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side, right? Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves. Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a question. You're stuck in a loop. I know perfectly well that to change a foundation document requires 3:1, but the question is, who decides what is and is not a contradiction or change to the foundation documents and so needs 3:1? You? The Secretary? Someone has to, and I think the developers should. Because in the end, if the developers go completely mad and decide that EVERYTHING IS DFSG FREE, 3:1 won't stop them for long. They could just elect a like-minded DPL, replace the Secretary with someone more pliant, hold another vote... The point is, you either trust the developers to be sane, or you don't and therefore think that you, or someone who agrees with you, should simply decide things by fiat. I don't accept that. And it is quite possible for the developers to want to change/suspend the foundation documents, while being perfectly aware of what they're doing. Hence 3:1. Like in the vote to delay the editorial changes until post-Sarge. See, the system can work. Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way, the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah, now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls for strict majoritarianism. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Christopher Martin pgpEKvlqYVg5L.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary? If not, why not? If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not? If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement, does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the constitution, personally. This seems to be a moot distinction, given that the constitution says that the secretary is the judge in disputes about what the constitution means. (section 7.1.3) As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it does use seems more than adequate. -- Raul
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On 9 Feb 2006, Anton Zinoviev spake thusly: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 09:45:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is DFSG-free and suitable for main in all cases [3:1] I need to correct this. The title for my proposal is [ ] Choice 3: GFDL is compatible with the current DFSG Noted. First, the whole text of my proposal talks entirely about the current DFSG. Second, my proposal doesn't revoke automatically the decision of the release team to remove the GFDL-documents from main. If my proposal wins, it is the release team who will have to change this decision Err, that doeds not compute. If the developers decide that the GFDL is compatible, then is it not tantamount to overriding gthe decision taken? It is not as if the release team can go around doing otherwise. The vox populi has power :) manoj -- One seldom sees a monument to a committee. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference between contradicts the foundation documents and modifies the foundation documents. First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority, it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right mess. That would be a moot point, not a contradiction. Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't. This can only be true where appearances are deceiving. -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not. Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves. No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint. I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their interpretation is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature of a repeal, they must do so by a 3:1 vote. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? What did they say in response to questions like did you read the changes? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG4 and combined works
* Anton Zinoviev [Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:18:59PM +0200]: The strong point of the second notion of freedom is that 1. this freedom is all we need for practical purposes (thats why FSF holds this notion of freedom) and 2. this is the status quo in Debian. The problem with this second notion is that practical purposes is ill-defined. What do you mean by ill-defined? I mean that what you mean by practical purposes is not necessarily the same as what I do. Most objections to the GFDL have been backed up by what the objectors to the GFDL consider practical purposes. I think that what purposes I consider practical is key to define what I consider free, and that all the freedom we need for practical purposes is a mere restatement of the obvious. Hope I made it clearer now. It seems to me I'm more or less paraphrasing things that have already been said here, so I'll stop now. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit : On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when A search in the debian-devel@ archive of the past years would be enough to expose this as a lie, but maybe you were not a developer at the time and so I suppose you could be partially excused. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone come forward and said I was deceived by GR 2004-03? I Yes, multiple people did. HTH. Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers? Sure, look at the flame which followed aj's message. What did they say in response to questions like did you read the changes? I do not remember. I do not think it's relevant either. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what software is in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not editorial. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 17:32, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for strict majoritarianism. What is being called for is that the developers be allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their prerogative. Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their interpretation is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature of a repeal, they must do so by a 3:1 vote. But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. The Secretary does, because he or she can judge whether something is a matter of interpretation or a modification. He/she therefore can arbitrarily decide what constitutes a legimitate and an illegitimate interpretation of the DFSG. Therefore, you willingly grant the Secretary the power to interpret the DFSG. The developers can only interpret the DFSG within the range allowed by the Secretary, or face the 3:1 obstacle. And indeed, our current Secretary refuses to countenance the idea that the GFDL being free is an acceptable interpretation. I happen to agree - I believe that only without invariant sections is the GFDL Free - but I don't think it's up to Manoj to tell us this, so I'm upset at the 3:1 requirement. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Christopher Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. How is this relevant? It shows that there was a widely accepted meaning of what software is in the context of the DFSG, so the change was not editorial. And how is this relevant? Please see the subject line. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to a minor power...in cases of deadlock. What it says is adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Right. So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the DFSG? If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document. Would a GR that said Pine hereby passes the DFSG be ok? How about one that said Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may be added to the main Debian archive.? Neither of those explicitly revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would require a 3:1 vote. And removing the Even though the DSG and the SC say otherwise cannot possibly affect the matter. So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare it otherwise. If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to say so. The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination; he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning percentage. There just isn't any other way. If the GFDL is not DFSG-compliant, then a majority *cannot* declare it so, because it would be reversing the DFSG itself (just as if it said notwithstanding the DFSG and the SC, pine is hereby allowed into main). Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 10, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Surely it does. People who say I was deceived; and I didn't bother to take elementary steps to avoid deception have chosen to be deceived. Well, at least now you agree that the GR title was deceiptful. No, I do not agree. I have said nothing of the kind. Were you deceived by the 2003 amendment? No, because the second time I received the ballot I had time to waste and spent it reading the proposed changes. But just by reading the subject I would have believed too that these were trivial changes, just like in the precedent GR. Then why did you not alert people to the deception? Surely you realized how dangerous it was, voted against it, and warned other people of this deception, right? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. I see nothing about section 7.1 which limits it to a minor power...in cases of deadlock. What it says is adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution. DFSG != constitution Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Right. So, the question is, does the amendment in question supercede the DFSG? If it does, then it requires a 3:1 vote. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. It seems a perfectly plausible interpretation of the Constitution to say that a resolution which is inconsistent with a Foundation Document is one which would supercede that document. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? Would a GR that said Pine hereby passes the DFSG be ok? How about one that said Even though the DFSG and the SC say otherwise, pine may be added to the main Debian archive.? Neither of those explicitly revokes or amends anything, but I think we can agree that they would require a 3:1 vote. And removing the Even though the DSG and the SC say otherwise cannot possibly affect the matter. Yes, I would agree with you that such amendments _should_ have to meet the 3:1 requirement to pass. But I refuse to grant the Secretary the power to decide this. If a vote is proposed without it, and it gets the requisite seconds, etc. then it should be voted upon without it. If a majority of developers are really so dumb as to vote for such silly things, then there is no hope for the Project anyway, and not you, nor the Secretary, will be able to save it. This isn't perfect, I'll admit, but there is no more correct, more legitimate way to settle issues of interpretation than by majority vote, under the current constitution. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess (despite my disagreements with Manoj, I'm not at all suggesting that he's this bad; I'm speaking hypothetically). Unless someone wants to propose a new Foundation Document Interpretation Board of annually elected developers to handle such issues, majority votes it must be (as infrequently as possible). So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. No, that is NOT the question. And, if it is, then it requires a 3:1 vote to declare it otherwise. If it isn't, then it only requires a majority vote to say so. The Secretary has no choice but to make that determination; he must provide a ballot which declares the correct winning percentage. There just isn't any other way. Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the developers. The Secretary has no choice is backwards. The
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of disagreement. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? I certainly haven't refused to address it. The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a proper ballot. It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job. It is just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really right. There is no safe course; he must make a judgment, and then issue the correct ballot. This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in Debian requires it. For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do so. They do not need to wait for a ballot; they do not have to defer to the maintainer who uploaded it. It is their job to make this determination in installing packages into the archive. Likewise, I say, it is the Secretary's job to do so when preparing ballots for voting. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess. So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know. So the question is, again, whether the license is or is not DFSG-compliant. No, that is NOT the question. If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Yes, there is, even if you don't like it. It's called the constitutional way, which happens to be by respecting the will and common sense of the developers. The Secretary has no choice is backwards. The Secretary does in fact have no choice, as you say, but it is not to impose his/her own view of the DFSG on everyone else, but to refrain from doing so. The Secretary is not some Prince of Reason appointed to guard the DFSG. That is not in the constitution. If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the amendment does not alter the DFSG. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please cite the part of the constitution which grants the Secretary this extraordinary power. Despite what Raul Miller repeatedly asserts, a minor power to decide issues of constitutional interpretation in cases of deadlock DOES NOT mean that they have the power to interpret the DFSG, since the DFSG is not the constitution. Repeatedly asserts? I think, if you check my assertion, it included a direct reference to the text of the constitution that I was referring to. If you think I'm wrong, perhaps you could say specifically what it is about what I wrote which conflicts with that part of the constitution? Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the developers follow when doing these things. And we're following those procedures. So where's the problem? -- Raul
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? The constitution says: ... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4). I think that's pretty clear. Also, you might want to read the references it lists. I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his powers in any way, shape or form. -- Raul
Re: GFDL GR, vote please!
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 04:03:48PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: I am away from home, so I can't sign this email. However, we can not hold a vote until the minimal discussion period is over, which makes it Feb 23,rd at the earliest, so I'll probably do it Feb 25th. I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, as per my mail: The original proposal became formal with Roger Leigh's second, on the 12th of January, and as no further amendments were accepted, a call for a vote is appropriate any time two weeks after that (from the 26th of January), as per A.2(1) and A.2(4). 4.2(4): the minimum discussion period is 2 weeks (and hasn't been varied) A.2(4): the minimum discussion period is counted from the time (a) the last formal amendment was accepted (b) the whole resolution was proposed if no amendments have been proposed and accepted A.1(1): amendments may be made formal by being proposed and sponsored, so there were three formal amendments, Adeodato's first, Anton's, and Adeodato's second. A.1(2): A formal amendment may be accepted by the resolution's proposer, which didn't happen for any of these, so there were no formal amendments that have been proposed and accepted, so (b) holds The whole resolution was proposed on 11th Jan 2006 21:53:43 +1000, and received sufficient sponsors at 12th Jan 2006 09:59:20 +. So the minimum discussion period ended on the 26th Jan 2006 09:59:20 +, afaics. Since the initial draft of the GR was posted 1st January, we've already been discussing this for six weeks, so I don't think there's any need for another two weeks on this. Look at section A.1.6, which specifies what changes to a proposal do not restart the minimum discussion period. That allows the original resolution to be changed in some cases without the discussion period restarting. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:18PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: On 2/9/06, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: It's not about honor; it's about decision-making. When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the right decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you don't trust the first group. Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary? Of course it should be. That's why I said it generally. As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation documents, or even about having to act in accord with them. Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it does use seems more than adequate. It says how the documents can be superceded or withdrawn; it doesn't say anything about ignoring them outright, or changing the way they're interpreted. Of course, not saying anything about it leaves the matter up to interpretation, at least to some extent, and the secretary's certainly empowered to do that, both effectively (by controlling the way votes are taken) and formally (by 7.1(3)). I think it's a mistake for Manoj to have taken on that role in this case, but it's his choice. As far as the outcome's concerned, though, I don't think it matters either way -- I think Anton's amendment has received more than enough discussion that it ought to be voted above Further Discussion, and I think it's far better for us to decide what we want to do based on what we want and what we think, rather than attacking each other. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le jeudi 09 f?vrier 2006 ? 23:19 +0100, Marco d'Itri a ?crit : On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main. This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to accept non-free documentation into main. Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys. See the mail in -private entitled social contract and documentation policy dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -, and realise that the GFDL came out three years later in March 2000. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:26:49PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this. Actually, it was mostly about firmware, see http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/04/msg00074.html Thank you for the correction. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:19, Raul Miller wrote: Note also that the 3:1 supermajority requirement is not a part of the DFSG. So your explicit claim about DFSG interpretation being out of scope for the secretary doesn't seem to provide a basis for your implicit claim that the secretary does not have the right to impose the requirement on some of the options in this vote. To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. You can't argue that since the constitution doesn't explicitly forbid the Secretary to take it upon him/herself to interpret the DFSG for everyone else, that therefore he/she must do so, in order to discharge the constitutional duty of placing 3:1 supermajorities on amendments, etc. That's backwards. Essentially you'd be asserting that any delegate has _any power_ he or she deems necessary to fulfill his or her view of their own constitutional duties, unless explicitly forbidden, item by item, by the constitution. Because that's the only way I can see for getting from the constitution mentions that some votes should require 3:1 supermajorities to therefore the Secretary must be the constitutionally ordained arbiter of DFSG correctness for all votes. And this despite other constitutional verbiage that suggests that developers have that power. Huh. Indeed, section 4.1 states that the developers, by way of GRs or elections, have the power to issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. These include documents describing the goals of the project, its relationship with other free software entities, and nontechnical policies such as the free software licence terms that Debian software must meet. They may also include position statements about issues of the day. The GFDL sounds like an issue of the day to me. Sure, and the constitution goes on and lists the procedure the developers follow when doing these things. And we're following those procedures. So where's the problem? The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my complaint. Christopher Martin pgpsvMFCwp83A.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:18, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thursday 09 February 2006 18:28, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But what you are saying is that the developers don't have that right. Quite wrong. I'm saying they *do* have this right, and it is a right that must be exercised by a 3:1 vote. But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to do so, however carefully. Besides, that bit of the constitution seems designed to provide an out for the Project in case some matter of procedure is challenged by some other delegate. Are you seriously asserting that that little clause gives the Secretary the right to de facto interpret, or at least heavily restrain the useful range of interpretation of, the DFSG? I'm saying that the Secretary interprets the Constitution in cases of disagreement. Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of the constitution. Of course. For the twenty millionth time, no one is denying that 3:1 _ought_ to be required when a resolution is put forth which contradicts/overrides/supercedes/modifies/whatever a foundation document. The real issue, which you keep refusing to address, is who gets to decide what is or is not a contradiction/etc. rather than a clarification/interpretation of a foundation document? I certainly haven't refused to address it. The Secretary must make such a determination in order to issue a proper ballot. It is a necessary part of the Secretary's job. It is just as wrong for him to require only a majority when 3:1 is really right, as it is for him to require 3:1 when only a majority is really right. There is no safe course; he must make a judgment, and then issue the correct ballot. No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their job to ensure a proper ballot if ensuring a proper ballot would require them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG interpretation. They would have to suck it up and let the vote go ahead, and hope that the common sense of the developers prevailed. This is, incidentally, just what everyone else does when their job in Debian requires it. For example, the ftpmasters must reject a package whose license is contrary to the DFSG, and they have the power to do so. The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote). The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations, etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon. I'd rather risk a waste-of-time vote or two than a maverick Secretary with extreme, outrageously bizarre views on the DFSG who doesn't refrain from imposing them and makes a mess. So the Constitution has procedures for replacing the Secretary, you know. Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves. If the Secretary allows the amendment with only a majority requirement, then he most certainly *has* imposed the view that the amendment does not alter the DFSG. No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of the proposal. Christopher Martin pgpFlu7i74LRe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:18:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Everyone has the job of interpreting the DFSG. I'm saying that if, in the opinion of the Secretary, an interpretation of the DFSG is tantamount to a reversal of part of it, then it requires a 3:1 majority to pass. If the license is not DFSG-compliant, then a resolution to declare that it is so, is either a dead letter, or else works a rescinding of the DFSG to that extent. Unfortunately things are not as clear-cut as you would like to claim. You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. Initially, we expect this determination to be made by individual developers, as you have pointed out. Individuals' judgements may be called into question by ftpmasters, who may ask debian-legal for comments. If there is no consensus, then we have a vote. We have *no* higher authority to determine the DFSG-compliance of a license than such a vote. So your statement is meaningless. The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. I'll refrain from arguing about what might happen in the event of a contradiction, as it's a pointless distraction at this juncture. Cheers, Nick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either. I didn't say he has the right to decide it for everyone else; I said he has the right to decide it when required in the course of his duties. For every single resolution, the Secretary must decide if it is a modification of a Foundation Document, and if it is, require a 3:1 majority. For him to require a simple majority would amount to a declaration that the resolution does *not* modify the Foundation Document. He cannot avoid making that determination. The problem is that in the course of this procedure, the Secretary overstepped his authority, as I've explained above. You may not agree with that view, but I don't see why you should be so confused about my complaint. I didn't say I was confused (or if I did, I didn't mean it in this way). I am perfectly clear about your complaint; I think it is groundless however. The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot; it his his determination what correctness is in each and every case using the voting procedure. For him to say this requires a majority requires him to have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the other. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:24:09PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third* time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the project forever. This is not honorable behavior. Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose, before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and over again? Thomas, I really think your attempts to suppress use of Debian's standard resolution procedure are inappropriate. The constitution says that any K developers have the right to bring a resolution before the project for consideration. While I think there are cases where using a GR to override a decision is unwise and divisive, I don't think that a group of developers sincerely feeling that a previous vote has gone awry are one of those cases. If you think that they're *wrong* about whether these changes represent a majority opinion in the project, why spend any effort at all arguing on the mailing list? All you really need to do is cast your vote against the GR when it comes to vote. OTOH, maybe you don't think they're a vocal minority; maybe you think that they're genuinely a majority, or that their arguments are winning supporters. In that case, I think you would be better off arguing the issues instead. At the very least, I don't think we should be seeking to disenfranchise such a majority if it does exist. And if nothing else, letting opponents of 2004-03 bring this issue to vote on their own terms would put to rest the question of whether this vote was representative. Not that this is what we have here; *this* GR is about issuing a position statement that the GFDL is *not* acceptable to Debian, which makes it doubly inappropriate to object to developers seeking to have their views represented as an option on the ballot. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? You can't say the developers have the right to interpret the DFSG, not the Secretary; the Secretary only gets to arbitrarily decide to make the passage of some amendments far more difficult than for others because of his or her own contrary interpretation of the DFSG, at his or her personal whim. That's obviously ludicrous. So you think that Manoj's opinion was on the basis of personal whim? It was his personal judgment. I'm sure he thought about it carefully, but that's irrelevant. It's still not (as I've argued elsewhere) his power to do so, however carefully. The phrase you used was personal whim. Whose judgment should he use instead? He may interpret the Constitution to require that implicit modifications of Foundation Documents require 3:1 just as explicit ones do. This is hardly a radical stretch. And, he must determine for every resolution whether it is a modification of a Foundation Document. He cannot shirk this responsibility; he must determine, and then issue the ballot. If he issues a ballot that says this requires a majority when it works a modification of a Foundation Document, then he has been remiss in his duties. He has indeed then violated the Constitution. There is no way for him to not decide, which seems to be what you think he should do. Perhaps you missed the part where I pointed out that the DFSG is not part of the constitution. Read the above, please. No, the Secretary is not obligated to do so, as I've explained in previous posts. He/she is not at all obligated to make a judgment. It is not their job to ensure a proper ballot if ensuring a proper ballot would require them to overstep their authority by engaging in personal DFSG interpretation. The Constitution is silent on who interprets the DFSG. It follows that it is the job of every developer in the course of their duties to do so to the best of their ability. In no way have I suggested that Manoj's interpretation of the DFSG should control ftpmaster, for example. It controls his execution of his duties, and nothing more. But also, nothing less. Issuing the ballot with a majority requirement when, in his opinion, the resolution effects a change to the DFSG, is a violation of the Constitution. The ftpmasters should, in theory at least, follow the decisions of the Project as to what should be in main. They would also be overstepping their authority if they started rejecting packages under the GPL because they decided that they didn't like it anymore, since longstanding consensus allows the GPL (though this could be reversed by a vote). It is however ultimately *their* determination. Yes, they should attend to consensus. But they are not beholden to it. I would note that Manoj explicitly requested comment here. He was (and I presume, is) quite happy to receive people's opinions about the proper form of the ballot. The Secretary should also follow the directives, standard interpretations, etc. of the Project, but when it is precisely an issue of interpretation that is at hand, they should refuse to inject their own views by setting 3:1 supermajorities, and let the developers decide the matter. To impose a 3:1 supermajority would be to presuppose the very issue being voted upon. It is the *Constitution* which imposes the 3:1 requirement on changes to the Foundation Documents. It is the Secretary's job to give effect to that provision by creating correct ballots. If I propose a resolution that says This resolution is not a recission or modification of a Foundation Document. The text of the DFSG shall remain intact just as is. The main Debian archive may now include any software which it is legally permitted to distribute, whether it passes the tests of the DFSG or not, are you seriously saying that such a resolution requires only a majority vote? Yes, but we shouldn't have to do that, since the Secretary should refuse to interpret the DFSG in the first place and let the developers themselves decide what to think. We don't need to be protected from ourselves. How can he refuse? If he refuses to interpret it, then he cannot assign the correct victory margin *AT ALL*. If he says this requires a majority then that *is* a determination that the resolution does not modify the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination. No, he's refused to judge on the matter, and refused to shape the vote and prejudge the issue. Not at all the same as endorsing the acceptability of the proposal. How can he say because this does not change the DFSG, it requires a majority without making a judgment that it does not change the DFSG? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Nick Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: You are of course assuming that there is some way of making an absolute determination as to the DFSG-compliance of a license, when there is not. No, I'm not. I'm saying that when the Secretary makes a ballot, he must make a determination as best as he can. The vote is not a means of rescinding the DFSG or SC, nor even of contradicting them. It is the *only* means we have of determining whether something is in compliance with them. If a majority say that that is the case, then for our purposes, it is so. No. This is incorrect. The developers surely have the right to declare what the DFSG means; I have never challenged that. However, this does not specify by what majority they must act. The developers have the right to rescind the DFSG or close down the Project if they want, but this does not mean that a mere majority is sufficient to take those steps. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd documentation in main before long. Before or after the next renaming of creationism, I wonder? -- Glenn Maynard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 21:27, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To impose the 3:1 requirement requires, beforehand, a judgment concerning the DFSG. Since no one has found a Secretarial basis for that power, it follows that to arbitrarily impose 3:1 supermajorities (when doing so on the basis of a personal interpretation of the DFSG) is not proper. That the 3:1 bit is mentioned in the constitution is quite irrelevant. The Secretary has the same basis as everyone else. The Constitution never tells the ftpmasters to implement the DFSG either. There is a difference between implementing the accepted interpretation of the DFSG (i.e. the ftpmaster task) and deciding on what is the correct interpretation (the task of the developers as a whole, not the Secretary, and not the ftpmasters either, though they could start doing so, but would be subject to being overruled by the developers). The Secretary *must* issue a correct ballot We're going in circles. Of course we want the Secretary to issue a correct ballot. But if the vote is to decide on DFSG interpretation, then the whole dispute is over what sorts of things are acceptable and unacceptable, correct and incorrect. And _that_ is not for the Secretary to decide, since then we might as well skip the vote and just ask the Secretary to tell us how the DFSG is correctly interpreted. ; it his his determination what correctness is in each and every case using the voting procedure. For him to say this requires a majority requires him to have decided that the resolution does not work a modification of the DFSG. He cannot avoid making that determination, one way or the other. A simple majority is clearly the default position, and the Secretary should not overrule that (in cases of DFSG interpretation). Christopher Martin pgpwgDrx1Rbq6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thursday 09 February 2006 20:26, Raul Miller wrote: On 2/9/06, Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But why does the Secretary get to decide whether this barrier should be set or not? The constitution says: ... the final decision on the form of ballot(s) is the Secretary's - see 7.1(1), 7.1(3) and A.3(4). I think that's pretty clear. Sure, no one denies the Secretary the power to conduct votes within procedural guidelines. I think it's pretty clear here that the Secretary is not exceeding his powers in any way, shape or form. But it doesn't follow from the final decision on the form of ballot(s) that the Secretary is the DFSG arbiter. You'd think the constitution would have mentioned that. For instance, if the Secretary refused to include a GR amendment in a vote because he/she hated the proposer and merely declared it just plain stupid, we can probably all agree that the Secretary would be acting improperly, despite his/her constitutional power to decide the shape of votes. So final decision on the form of ballot(s) is not some limitless purview. And since the constitution explicitly grants developers broad powers over defining documents, issuing statements, etc. (but not the Secretary) it seems that the most sound interpretation of the constitution is that the Secretary is not the DFSG arbiter, and should allow matters of interpretation of the DFSG to be settled by simple vote amongst the developers. This means refraining from imposing supermajorities on disputes over DFSG interpretation, despite strong personal views. Christopher Martin pgpfVqMz9VxgU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd documentation in main before long. What are you willing to stake on that, out of curiousity? How about a $100 donation to SPI if there's no such GR by 2007-04-01? Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 12:16:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: Quoting Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the everything is software vote as an editorial change and deceived many other developers should have tought about this. The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. Yes, thanks, that's a great example of how there are people on both sides of this issue that are capable of acting like children. Pass on giving it a second reading, it was nauseating enough to see it come through my mailbox the first time. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:24:13 +1000, Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au said: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:45:48PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Or maybe this is only something that has been invented a posteriori when people realized some documentation from the FSF, that was believed to be free because it is the FSF, had been accepted into main despite its license written by hordes of monkeys. See the mail in -private entitled social contract and documentation policy dated 2 Jul 1997 19:39:59 -, and realise that the GFDL came out three years later in March 2000. Bah. Why didn't GR 2005-02 get passed? :( /me goes back to sitting in the MN queue -- Hubert Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net. Encrypted e-mail preferred. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Christopher Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one's. He should allow the developers to decide without shaping the vote by imposing 3:1 supermajority requirements (when doing so presupposes the very issue under debate, as in the case of DFSG interpretation). Having a majority vote amounts to a decision that the status quo does not prohibit the GFDL. No, he must not make any such determination in cases where the DFSG is in dispute. You keep asserting that, while ignoring the arguments I make as to _why_. He would not be shirking his duty, since my whole point is that he does not have that duty. He must not prejudge issues of DFSG interpretation; that is not his job. You say that he shouldn't make that interpretation, but you haven't said anything about what he should do then, given that each option represents an interpretive decision. To have a 3:1 ballot requires deciding that the resolution works an amendment to the DFSG. To have a majority ballot requires deciding that it doesn't. Yes. Because I would trust the developers to see the amendment as the silly fraud that it would be, and vote it down. We don't need the Secretary's protection, believe it or not. Really? Even if a majority of the developers liked the idea? Remember, the 3:1 requirement is there to protect the remaining 25% against majorities as high as 74%. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au writes: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 06:41:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Still, I have no confidence at this point. I am quite sure that, even if Anthony's original resolution passes overwhelmingly, we will see another GR with the effect keep GFDL'd documentation in main before long. What are you willing to stake on that, out of curiousity? How about a $100 donation to SPI if there's no such GR by 2007-04-01? Hrm. Ok, sure, but with tightened wording. On the condition that: 1) Anthony's original resolution passes, with neither alternative chosen; and 2) No relevant change is made in the GFDL; 3) The FSF continues to license its core manuals with the GFDL, including the use of invariant sections. I predict that another GR will be introduced within 18 months from the date the resolution passes, which has the substantial effect of including the FSF's core manuals in Debian main. If this prediction fails, then I'll gladly send in $100. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 08:58:23AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote: The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software. Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an implicit grant of permission? No. What good is an implicit grant of permission under copyright law? It's probably not an intended effect, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be exploited to harm us if we leave it unaddressed. (Not necessarily by the current FSF regime, but copyrights can be transferred, yadda yadda.) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote: Actually it's the opposite claim -- it's not about the spirit of the license that Nick's talking about, it's the spirit of the DFSG. True, that is what he said, so I guess my comment was off-point. Of course, everyone agrees that we should adhere to the spirit of the DFSG -- the people who consider the GFDL non-free are perhaps the most ardent advocates of this. We tend to believe that for a license to be Free, it must not impose any restrictions, intentional or unintentional, which are contrary to the spirit of the DFSG. Simply claiming that something adheres to the spirit of the DFSG doesn't make it true. I believe that my description of the arguments of the people who want to ignore the problems with the text of the GFDL remains accurate: they want to look at the spirit of the license rather the actual text. It's a tenable position, though I don't agree with it. -- Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Instead, we front-load the flamewars and grudges in the interest of efficiency.) --Steve Lanagasek, http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01056.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
