Re: [OT] Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : >> And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG >> non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? > > For the record, I will not answer in this thread to other posts that are > insulting, question people's mental health, or suggest that people who > disagree > should leave. So why do you expect us to do that with your GR draft? Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
[OT] Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:28:01AM +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : > > And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG > non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? For the record, I will not answer in this thread to other posts that are insulting, question people's mental health, or suggest that people who disagree should leave. -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit : >> Charles Plessy > H> > Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : Charles Plessy > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and > all > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? >>> in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no >>> function >>> in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at >>> all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian >>> system. >> In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says >> that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ > > Yes, exactly. In this draft GR I propose to ignore some DFSG-non-free files, > which includes sourceless files. Our social contract only stipulates that the > Debian sytstem must be DFSG-free. We already have a non-free section for the > non-free works that we would like to distribute for the purpose of being used > with the our operating system. I think that our social contract also allow us > to distribute innert non-free files together with the source of the Debian > system as long as they do not take part of it. And who in their right mind do you expect to vote for ignoring DFSG non-freeness, people that want to leave the project? The source is part of the Debian system as you call it, so what it contains should be DFSG free. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:42:07AM +, MJ Ray a écrit : > Charles Plessy H> > Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : > > > Charles Plessy > > > > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system > > > > and all > > > > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] > > > > > > Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the > > > program must include source? > > > > in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no > > function > > in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at > > all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian > > system. > > In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says > that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ Yes, exactly. In this draft GR I propose to ignore some DFSG-non-free files, which includes sourceless files. Our social contract only stipulates that the Debian sytstem must be DFSG-free. We already have a non-free section for the non-free works that we would like to distribute for the purpose of being used with the our operating system. I think that our social contract also allow us to distribute innert non-free files together with the source of the Debian system as long as they do not take part of it. Doing this on purpose would of course be a big hypocrisy. We could mention in the GR that it is not acceptable to repack an upstream tarball for adding a non-free file, nor to include some in the debian diff or tarball component of the source package, nor for Debian to distribute its own developments as source packages containing non-free files since we have to show the way (note that not all packages in native format are Debian developments). Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy > Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : > > Charles Plessy > > > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and > > > all > > > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” [...] > > > > Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the > > program must include source? > > in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function > in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at > all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian > system. In other words, just blatently ignore the bit of the DFSG that says that programs must include source. Well, that explains it :-/ -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Le Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:56:36PM +, MJ Ray a écrit : > Charles Plessy > > > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all > > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of > > this > > is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we > > distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages > > contain > > non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it > > can > > be said that they are not part of the Debian system. [...] > > Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the > program must include source? Hi, in my opinion, if a file contained in a Debian source package has no function in the Debian system, if its removal has actually no effect on the system at all, then it is reasonable to declare that it is not part of the Debian system. I propose to leave the possibility to maintainers to ignore such files and leave them in the Debian source packages, even if its source is not available, since what matters to us is to provide the source of our operating system, not of files that have no function in it. For example, in one of my packages (samtools), there is a windows executable that is built against a free library whose source is not included in the package. By our current standards it is sourceless and must be removed. I propose to ignore such files. In other packages, I found PDFs that look like been made with LaTeX, but their source is not available. In a couple of cases I managed to get the upstream maintainers to add the sources, but it often takes monthes. I propose to let the maintainers exclude these PDFs from the binary packages as long as their sources are not recovered, but spare the time of implementing the whole tarball repackaging machinery, especially that if their effort of asking the source upstram, this machinery is only transiently necessary. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy > [...] my personal conclusion that this time could be > better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these > practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose > to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. As will become clear, I disagree with at least one significant point of the premise, but I'm also not clear that this is merely a GR to show consensus. The copyright documentation practices are mostly the decision of the ftpmasters (although advised by various people), so this GR is actually overriding their decision. What is their view of these ideas? My personal conclusion is also that this time could be better spent, but for it to be safe to do that would require changes in copyright law, so you would be best off campaigning for liberalisation of copyright and related rights as a first step. > According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all > its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this > is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we > distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain > non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can > be said that they are not part of the Debian system. [...] Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the program must include source? Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Wouter Verhelst writes: > I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but does this really really really > need a GR? If it could be arranged, a way to avoid the GR would be to have the ftpmasters publicly express (ideally in this discussion thread) their position in agreement with one of Charles's proposed options. -- \ “Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?” “Well, I think | `\ so, Brain, but it's a miracle that this one grew back.” —_Pinky | _o__) and The Brain_ | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 11:47:41PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Dear all, > > a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is > spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the > distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that > have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years > spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be > better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these > practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose > to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. > > 1) The copyright attributions. [...lots of text snipped...] I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but does this really really really need a GR? -- The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is trying to fool the system. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Please sign your message if you want to propose a GR. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Dear all, a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus. 1) The copyright attributions. The inventory of copyright notices that we distribute together with our packages is checked at the first upload only. At this step already, some packages with incomplete lists are accepted. For other packages, new copyright notices added upstream during updates are missed and the Debian copyright file is not updated. As a result, for the purpose of having an exhaustive listing of all the copyright notices present in the Debian source packages, the debian/copyright files are not a reliable source of information. I do not think that we have the manpower, nor perhaps the will, to do this inventory with the same aim of perfection as we have for other matters like security or stability for instance. Since not all license require to reproduce the copyright notices in the documentation of our binary packages, I propose to give up this self-imposed requirement, and simply focus on respecting the licenses. I have considered whether doing so would increase the work load of our archive administrators. I have some experience of NEW package inspection (http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview). In my experience, the debian/copyright file is not an aid to the reviewing task, since the very goal of this task is to check if nothing has been omitted or incorrectly copied. The license of the redistributed files have to be inspected anyway, and at this moment it is usually clear whether the license has some clauses about the reproduction of copyright notices. 2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources. Some upstream archives contain files that are not free according to the DFSG, but that can be omitted without affecting the programs distributed in our binary packages. Typical examples include non-free RFCs, sourceless PDFs, GFDL documentation, copies of scientific articles licensed with a clause prohibiting commercial use, or builds of the program for MS-Windows. Repacking the upstream sources to remove such non-free files does not provide any additional freedom. Among the disadvantages of repacking, there is the work overhead for the packager, and the loss of transparency for our users as we do not distribute a bit-wise identical source archive as upstream anymore. Among the advantages, our users know that if they download our source packages, there is non-DFSG-free file in. I think that this advantage is not as big as we think. Since we allow licenses with an advertisement clause and licenses that forbid to reuse the same program name for derived works, our users have to check the license of our packages in any case and can not blindly redistribute modified versions without checking for the above two points. So the presence of legally redistributable files that do not satisfy the DFSG in our source package would not change our user experience, especially that the target is files that can be ignored. Most importantly, none of these files would be distributed in binary packages anyway. According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can be said that they are not part of the Debian system. Therefore, despite what I propose is a big change from our traditions, I do not think that it is a change that contradicts our foundation documents. Draft of the GR --- I propose three motions that can be seconded separately. The first implements the point 1), the second points 1) and 2). Given that point 2) is likely to be far more controversial than 1), I do not think that there is a need for a motion that addresses 2) but not 1). Lastly, remembering the bitter experience of the two GRs of 2008, I propose a third amendment to strongly reject the GR and blame for having submitted it, in case I strongly misunderstood the situation and harmed the project with this GR. Also, it allows the ‘further discussion’ default option to really mean that more discussion is needed. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan General resolution: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages. Motion A: The Debian binary
