Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to include external links to more extensice body of supporting material in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese paragraphs short and to the point. I certainly don't want to include hundreds of lines of additional material directly on the vote page. Please indicate if the content is preambulatory or postambulatory. manoj hi Manoj, ... I wonder where Frederik's proposal fits in this ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made available to voters. Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author has intended its interpretation? As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard. Regards, Joey -- It's time to close the windows. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I second this proposal. Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === If necessary, consider this an amendment under A.1.2; seconders, you may object to the changes under A.1.5. (If you decide to re-second this proposal, please only second the part between the === lines.) I've also attached the suggested content for the v.d.o webpages for this option in the interest of completeness. Don Armstrong 1: http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.3r2=1.4 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00228.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00235.html -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+ http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/ iD8DBQFFD5l+qMsB9b6fcOoRAhSnAJkBPKEyLoh5FO0kiTr7yuHIiDqTEACggFYa FDNpjfb68ifOFzbZzT161oE= =FSx9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Don Armstrong schrieb am Montag, den 18. September 2006: I also second this clarified proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === If necessary, consider this an amendment under A.1.2; seconders, you may object to the changes under A.1.5. (If you decide to re-second this proposal, please only second the part between the === lines.) I've also attached the suggested content for the v.d.o webpages for this option in the interest of completeness. Don Armstrong 1: http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/vote/2006/vote_004.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.3r2=1.4 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00228.html 3: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/09/msg00235.html -- CNN/Reuters: News reports have filtered out early this morning that US forces have swooped on an Iraqi Primary School and detained 6th Grade teacher Mohammed Al-Hazar. Sources indicate that, when arrested, Al-Hazar was in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square and a calculator. US President George W Bush argued that this was clear and overwhelming evidence that Iraq indeed possessed weapons of maths instruction. http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu vproposer / p Don Armstrong [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /p vseconds / ol li René van Bevern [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Frank Küster [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Pierre Habouzit [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Alexander Wirt [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Kari Pahula [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li li Anibal Monsalve Salazar [a href=mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]/a] /li /ol vtext / p Choice 1. The actual text of the resolution is as follows: /p h2DFSG #2 applies to all programmatic
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Martin Schulze wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made available to voters. Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author has intended its interpretation? It should be, but I'm far from infallible,[1] which is why I included the entire text as part of the proposal. As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard. While I still disagree that courts are unable to look at a preamble to guide their interpretation of a resolution, I have specifically included those paragraphs in the text of the proposal to sidestep this entire line of argument. Don Armstrong 1: Indeed, its worse than that: I'm often totally incomprehensible. -- It's not Hollywood. War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or victory, it is about death. I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies. Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject? -- Robert Fisk http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 18:46:50 -0700, Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: But just like the groundwork and foundation of a structure, the non-actionable content of a resolutions can contain information on how the actionable content is to be interpreted. As such, it is part of the resolution, and needs to be included with the content made available to voters. Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author has intended its interpretation? As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard. As for german law, this is definitely wrong. Courts primarily look at the text, but the public documents produced in parliament during the creation process do in fact count when in doubt. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
I second this proposal. == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === -- René van Bevern [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://progn.org http://www.debian.org http://www.pro-linux.de pgpyFLW0TR7Ja.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
* Debian Project Secretaru ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060918 20:56]: From: Frederik Schueler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:06:54 +0200 Good signature from EA7ED2A341954920 Frederik Schüler [EMAIL PROTECTED] , | 1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software | community (Social Contract #4); | 2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel | firmware issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out; | 3. We give priority to the timely release of Etch over sorting every | bit out; for this reason, we will deliver firmware in udebs as | long as it is necessary for installation (like all udebs), and | firmware included in the kernel itself as part of Debian Etch, | without further conditions. ` Defer discussion about SC and firmware until after the Etch release , | The Debian Project resolves that: | | (a) The inclusion in main of sourceless firmware and support in Debian | Installer is not a release blocker for the release of Etch. | | (b) For the release of Etch, the Release Managers are given discretion | to waive RC issues in other cases where the letter of the Social | Contract is currently not being met, provided there is no regression | relative to the Sarge release and that waivers are done consistently | and with proper consideration of past resolutions (e.g. GDFL) and | work already done on other (comparable) packages. | | (c) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall: | i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding |of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian |Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and |firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users; | ii. ensure that project resources are made available to |people working on addressing those issues; | iii. keep the Debian community updated on progress achieved |in these areas. | | (d) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall | reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the | project's Social Contract. This shall include both an online | consultation with Debian developers, users, Debian derivatives and | the free software community, and a public in-person discussion at | DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of the | original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th of July 1997. ` I'm seconding both of these proposals. Cheers, And5 -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Hi, I second this proposal: Don Armstrong [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === Marc -- BOFH #311: transient bus protocol violation pgp2bfLr33MVz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:40:08 +0200, Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:27:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Proponents of various various amendments to the GR should feel free to send me a couple of paragraphs in HTML markup to introduce/explain the resolutions they are proposing. Feel free to include external links to more extensice body of supporting material in the paragraphs you send me, but please keep theese paragraphs short and to the point. I certainly don't want to include hundreds of lines of additional material directly on the vote page. Please indicate if the content is preambulatory or postambulatory. manoj hi Manoj, ... I wonder where Frederik's proposal fits in this ? Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is now moot. We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text, including signatures and extra material in the email; since if people want a secretary with no powers to decide what is and is not resolution text, then if person A seconds a proposal with accompanying matter (someone just seconded Don Armstrongs proposal, and did not elide the vote.d.o fragment); and person B carefully edits and seconds a subset of the original email, then they are not seconding the same sequence of bytes. Previously, I would have exercised judgement -- but I have been informed a Debian delegate that that was gross and egregious abuse of my power as a secretary. At this point, I am unsure what to do --- technically, since the proposals seconded are unlikely to be identical, byte for byte, unless people get less sloppy about the process, a secretary without a brain can't count the seconds as belonging to the same proposal. manoj -- Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense. -Chapman Cohen Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Filibustering general resolutions
Hi, Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not specifically permit that. I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters. The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. manoj -- Let's say the docs present a simplified view of reality... :-) --Larry Wall in [EMAIL PROTECTED] Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. How about we see how to solve that when it actually happens? As far as I can see, in the case you're refering too, the deadline has only be moved into the future *once*; quite different from indefinately and I've seen nothing to believe that this group you refer to is interested in excercising this loophole to veto the proposal. I'll just keep my faith in the good intentions of these fellow developers for now and only assume an attempted sabotage of a vote when a bit more evidence to that matter surfaces. Let's wait and see what happens, and give our collegues/peers/fellows the benefit of the doubt. Thijs signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: Because there appears to be some residual confusion[1][2][3] about what I actually proposed and its content, here is the proposal as it currently stands. The proposal is only the content between BEGIN PROPOSAL and END PROPOSAL. I like this proposal, and will soon second it, but there are a few points i will like to clarify : C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
Hi, * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060919 17:57]: Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is now. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. What I also find important is that hardware comes with good technical documentation, so that we can either write the software ourself, or modify what the hardware vendor provides. But I'm not really sure if this belongs in a GR, and how it should be put into it. We might want to do things with the hardware that the vendor did not design it for. For instance, most GPUs would be very useful doing vector math. It can do alot more FP operation than a normal CPU, and things like that. I need to look at what the other current proposols look like, but I think a combination of this with the apoligy might be a good proposol. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
Seconded. On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: == BEGIN PROPOSAL = The Free Software movement is about enabling users to modify the works that they use on their computer; about giving users the same information that copyright holders and upstream developers have. As such, a critical part of the Free Software movement is the availability of source (that is, the form of the work that a copyright holder or developer would use to actually modify the work) to users. This makes sure that users are not held hostage by the whims (or lack of interest or financial incentive) of upstreams and copyright holders. Different types of works have different forms of source. For some works, the preferred form for modification may not actually be digitally transferable.[1] For others, the form that originally was preferred may have been destroyed at some point in time, and is no longer available to anyone. However, to the greatest extent possible,[2] the availability of source code to users is a critical aspect of having the freedom to modify the software that is running upon ones computer. Recognizing this, the Debian Project: A. Reaffirms that programmatic works distributed in the Debian system (IE, in main) must be 100% Free Software, regardless of whether the work is designed to run on the CPU, a subsidiary processing unit, or by some other form of execution. That is, works must include the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. B. Strongly recommends that all non-programmatic works distribute the form that the copyright holder or upstream developer would actually use for modification. Such forms need not be distributed in the orig.tar.gz (unless required by license) but should be made available on upstream websites and/or using Debian project resources. C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is not loaded by the operating system, provide the prefered form for modification so that purchasers of their hardware can exercise their freedom to modify the functioning of their hardware. 1: Consider film negatives, or magnetic tape in the case of audio recordings. 2: Here it must be emphasized that we refer to technically possible or possible for some party as opposed to legally possible for Debian. We also assume digital distribution, and do not attempt to require the distribution of physical objects. = END PROPOSAL === signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
* Andreas Barth: perhaps we should, independend of current GRs, consider how to change the GR procedure so that it doesn't happen to be as painful as it is now. Perhaps pain is highly subjective in this case. I guess it's less bizarre if you've been exposed to Robert's Rules of Order. (But I still think that the Rules themselves are horrible.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Tue, 2006-09-19 at 10:09 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. How about we see how to solve that when it actually happens? As far as I can see, in the case you're refering too, the deadline has only be moved into the future *once*; quite different from indefinately and I've seen nothing to believe that this group you refer to is interested in excercising this loophole to veto the proposal. I'm not sure which group is being referred to here, but if it's the change to a proposal that I presented, I have no problem with it being interpreted as a change under A.1.6 if that's appropriate. [I had assumed that it was clear what that proposal was the entire time, so whatever the Secretary decides as far as to reset or not reset the discussion period is fine by me.] [With our present system, filibustering could be continued indefinetly by any proposer, so long as enough seconders did not object... but doing that intentionally would be pretty egregious, and hasn't happened as far as I know.] Don Armstrong -- Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. -- Robert Heinlein http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal: Source code is important for all works in Debian, and required for programmatic ones
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:07:18PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: C. Reaffirms its continued support of users whose hardware (or software) requires works which are not freely licensed or whose source is not available by making such works available in non-free and providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so. What is the alternative to that ? not ship it ? Or ship it in main until Debian is capable of doing so ? It was intended to be parsed as [providing project resources to the extent that Debian is capable of doing so] to avoid requiring us to commit resources that we aren't able to do so comfortably, and/or distribute programs that we cannot legally distribute. D. Requests that vendors of hardware, even those whose firmware is I think Request is a bit strong here, i would much have prefered a less arrogant and will actually have more chance to be not dismissed out of hand by the actual hardware vendors. I'd intended for this paragraph to be used as something that people working with hardware vendors to freely license the source to firmware could point to when the hardware vendors ask Does Debian actually want this? I don't believe it would require Debian to send any message to the hardware vendors, besides its presence in the resolution. Don Armstrong -- Junkies were all knitted together in a loose global macrame, the intercontinental freemasonry of narcotics. -- Bruce Sterling, _Holy Fire_ p257 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Since it has been decreed that the secretary has no discretion in putting up properly proposed and seconded text, this request is now moot. We do have an issue now with people seconding extraneous text, including signatures and extra material in the email; since if people want a secretary with no powers to decide what is and is not resolution text, then if person A seconds a proposal with accompanying matter (someone just seconded Don Armstrongs proposal, and did not elide the vote.d.o fragment); and person B carefully edits and seconds a subset of the original email, then they are not seconding the same sequence of bytes. Previously, I would have exercised judgement -- but I have been informed a Debian delegate that that was gross and egregious abuse of my power as a secretary. I appreciate the frustration that you're expressing, and I'd like to see discussions be less confrontational. I don't really know how best to help with the underlying problem here. I thought you were doing fine in using your discretion. I may not have agreed in every particular, but it seemed like it was something that could be talked through and discussed and a compromise could be arrived at. I *don't* want to see a completely mechanical comparison of bytes for exactly the reason that you explain. So, how do we get back to a place where the secretary feels comfortable using his discretion and when that isn't the intention of the proposer, we can talk through it without people feeling insulted? Right now, it feels like all of us who thought that discretion was appropriate and were willing to speak up if we had suggestions on a different way of handling things are suffering due to the way that disagreement was expressed in a few places. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not specifically permit that. I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters. The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. If a group of developers started filibustering a GR over and over again, the DAMs would be well within their rights to pull the accounts of the people in question. A denial of service attack is grounds for exclusion and DMUP states: Don't by any ... reckless ... act interfere with the work of another developer Regards, Pasc -- Pascal Hakim+61 403 411 672 Do Not Bend -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Sourceless software in the kernel source GR
On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 09:54:17AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Umh, then I need to ask why the resolution is not clear enough so that it does not need the preamble to know in which way the author has intended its interpretation? As Manoj pointed out already, courts look at the resolution when *interpreting* it, not at the preamble, so it seems pretty useles in that regard. As for german law, this is definitely wrong. Courts primarily look at the text, but the public documents produced in parliament during the creation process do in fact count when in doubt. Manoj is simply incorrect about this. U.S. courts can and do consult the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, the Congressional Record, and other sources when necessary to reach an intelligible ruling. There are rules of construction which are routinely and faithfully applied (at least in the Indiana Court of Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, whose published opinions I read regularly) -- but when statutory, contractual, or constitutional language is ambiguous or unclear, judges can and do consult contextual information as an aid to interpretation. Nor is this merely a practice of activist, liberal judges who will grasp at anything they can find to bolster their nefarious juris-imprudence. Oh no. No less a champion of so-called originalism[1] than Clarence Thomas[2] resorted to citing the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution in his dissent[3] to a recent -- and prominent -- case, Kelo v. New London, last year's eminent domain case, infamous to many property owners in the United States. Tellingly, the phrase “public use” contrasts with the very different phrase “general Welfare” used elsewhere in the Constitution. See ibid. (“Congress shall have Power To … provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”); preamble (Constitution established “to promote the general Welfare”). Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), Thomas, J., dissenting[4] This is just one example; in my lay opinion, Thomas's approach is not even atypical in the American legal tradition, let alone unprecedented. If challenged, I will defer to the assessment of an appropriate authority[5]. Manoj, I am in fact sympathetic to your efforts to construct a ballot that is less than a megabyte in size, and were I in your shoes I would also attempt to construct a CFV that cuts to the chase -- but I find your analogical reasoning in this case to be ill-informed. It needlessly detracts from the merit of your position. I don't think it is too much to ask that the proposers and/or seconders of General Resolutions create and maintain wiki pages, for example, when their initiatives demand a lot of background material to appropriately inform and persuade the electorate. They can, of course, decline to do this if they choose, and let the GR stand or fall on its own language for those voters who are not congizant of the list discussions and any reportage that has occurred. To demand that the Project Secretary represent the positions of multiple factions when the issue being voted upon is highly charged, is to ask too much of the office. Those who would use the General Resolution procedure to achieve their aims in this project must shoulder some responsibility too. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas [3] If my argument is undermined through reference to a dissent rather than a majority opinion -- well, so much the worse for Justice Thomas and his fellow originalists. :) [4] I don't actually know how to cite by the Bluebook standard, so this represents my best effort. You can read Thomas's dissent here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html [5] Someone wanna set me up on a date with a constitutional law professor? (And hot damn, signify(1) has exhibited AI again. I promise that's really the quote it picked on the first try.) -- G. Branden Robinson| The Rehnquist Court has never Debian GNU/Linux | encountered a criminal statute it [EMAIL PROTECTED] | did not like. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John Dean signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Filibustering general resolutions
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:15:14 +1000, Pascal Hakim [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:09:04AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: Hi, Due to a loop hole in the constitution, any group of 6 Debian developers can delay any general resolution indefinitely by putting up their own amendment, and every 6 days, making substantiative changes in their amendment (they can just rotate between a small number of very different proposals). Previously, I had stated that I, in my role as secretary, would set an deadline for proposals two weeks in the future, and any proposals past the deadline would go no a separate ballot, in order to break the filibuster, even though the constitution did not specifically permit that. I realize now that that would be a an egregious abuse of the powers of the secretary, censorship, and grievously wrong procedure. I am no longer willing to step in and break filibusters. The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. If a group of developers started filibustering a GR over and over again, the DAMs would be well within their rights to pull the accounts of the people in question. A denial of service attack is grounds for exclusion and DMUP states: Don't by any ... reckless ... act interfere with the work of another developer And people tell me I am guilty of egregious abuse of power? This is just a bunch of concerned developers very slowly crafting a resolution. I am sure I can make my resolution come to perfection over the course of several years. If the DAM can suddenly exercise judgement, and it is not abuse of power, why is a brainless secretary so very desirable? manoj -- Well, you know, no matter where you go, there you are. Buckaroo Banzai Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
