Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Paul Wise]

On Thu, 2022-09-08 at 11:55 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:

> Such packages are not formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes
> and security updates depend entirely on their upstream developers.
...
> An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some 
> practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not 
> like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of 
> official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the 
> case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to 
> these packages.

This claim that non-free isn't part of Debian has always made me
slightly uncomfortable, since never appeared to be true to me, so I
feel like we should remove it and replace it with something more clear.
Your version goes part of the way there.

> We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages 
> to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
> they can distribute it on their media or products.

This vendor sentence seems like a subset of what we should warn about
though, there is software in non-free that bans commercial use, so not
just redistributors have to worry about it, but plain users too.


-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


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

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Russ Allbery]

"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)"  writes:

> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:

> """
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

> We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not
> conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not 
> formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates depend

(Noting mostly for my future self: I'd use a semicolon here instead of a
comma.)

> entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling
> infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug 
> tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive
> areas. We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages 
> to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether they
> can distribute it on their media or products.
> """

> An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
> practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not
> like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of
> official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the
> case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to
> these packages.

Yup, agreed.  I like those changes.

> Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it
> complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some
> finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.

The part of me that likes to do code refactorings and maintenance releases
kind of wants to do a wording cleanup GR yearly or so, just to deal with
ambiguous language and obsolete things like "CDs," but the rest of the
project may find that annoying.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Russ Allbery]

Steve McIntyre  writes:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:

>>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be
>>> one very simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The
>>> "statement of the day" is a nice addition, but can risk being
>>> nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely second a ballot option that would
>>> propose just this.

>> In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.
>>
>>5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>>
>>We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
>>not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
>>are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
>>infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
>>tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
>>archive areas.

Yes, I think this is even better if we're interested in going for a more
complete rework of that point.

> That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!

Steve, what do you think about the suggestion above that we have a ballot
option that only changes the SC and doesn't issue a statement on an issue
of the day, and thus doesn't include the text of your proposal?  I'm
worried that may feel like the project isn't providing enough guidance or
a clear enough decision, but I'm not sure if that's true.

The way I would read such a result is that the project leaves it up to the
installer team whether to include firmware or not, and whether to have
more than one installer, and I wasn't sure if that achieved what you
wanted when starting this GR.

I generally lean towards shorter GRs being better and leaving most
decisions to the relevant team, but only if that works for the relevant
team.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)  

Re: "official" image terminology Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Steve McIntyre]

Hey Ross!

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:04:24AM -0700, Ross Vandegrift wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
>> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
>> discussion.
>
>I had assumed "official" was in more common usage.  It seems like that's
>false.  Since the cloud team uses that term, here's a bit of detail I
>can offer.
>
>The best doc that I know of is here:
>  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages
>This tracks Steve's usage from earlier in the thread.  The cloud team
>uses it like this too --- we probably got it from him, back when he was
>on the team.  We also used to have DSA members on the team who seemed
>keen on the term.
>
>So while it doesn't appear in any foundational document, it does have
>traction amongst folks that are affected by these issues.  

Nod. It's been in common use amongst a number of teams over the
years. It's been useful particularly when denoting stuff that is *not*
official but still distributed by various Debian teams - e.g. test
builds or builds including non-free bits. It's been a subject of
discussion with the trademark team in the past, too.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
“Changing random stuff until your program works is bad coding
 practice, but if you do it fast enough it’s Machine Learning.”
   -- https://twitter.com/manisha72617183

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> > be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running 
> > on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> > given that the actual hardware is non-free.
> 
> What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy,
More hardware is now shipped without soldered firmware.
And more distros are actually usable on such hardware unlike Debian.

> and is compromising on our ideals the best way to deal with that?
We are already compromising on our ideals, see SC4, SC5 and what does FSF
think about that.

> I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free software
> since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's.
It wasn't the same, but sure, keeping usability on the 1995 level is
directly harmful to Debian's relevancy.
You may be also confusing firmware and drivers.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 05:22:58PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>Simon Richter  writes:
>
>> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
>> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running 
>> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
>> given that the actual hardware is non-free.
>
>What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy, and is compromising
>on our ideals the best way to deal with that?
>
>I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free software
>since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's.
>The challenge will continue be the same as long as there is proprietary
>software.  The amount of hardware compatible with free software is
>enourmously larger today than it was back then.  I don't see that Debian
>or other free software projects having become less relevant over the
>years.  In fact, I perceive sticking to these principles (while offering
>high quality products and processes) has been instrumental to shift the
>proprietary software industry our way.  People will continue to talk bad
>about free software, and promote proprietary software, but I am hoping
>Debian will be a factor against that.

You're missing the point. Debian will *still* be producing Free
Software. We're talking about enabling people to *use* that Free
Software on the computers they already *have*, not some idealised Free
Software compatible computers that barely exist today. It's just like
the FSF providing support to users wanting to run software on top of
proprietary OSes back in the day.

If new users cannot sensibly install and use our Free Software on the
computers they have, they'll go elsewhere. We won't get the
opportunity to educate them about the benefits of Debian and Free
Software if they've already discarded our installation media and moved
on. We don't get new users, we don't get new developers.

None of us *like* this situation, but we have a pragmatic solution.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
'There is some grim amusement in watching Pence try to run the typical
 "politician in the middle of a natural disaster" playbook, however
 incompetently, while Trump scribbles all over it in crayon and eats some
 of the pages.'   -- Russ Allbery


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 04:45:50PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> > As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one 
> > very
> > simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.
> 
> It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a
> pretty strong word here.
> 
> It is a marked step back from our principles and will be perceived as such,
> and it will also be a disservice to our users if we don't at the same time
> start lobbying harder for free, user-controlled computing infrastructure,
> because ultimately the future of free software hinges on whether there can
> be another generation of tinkerers, or if they will be locked out and
> relegated to working for free to add value to proprietary offerings.
Again, this assumes the firmware problems only exist when the said
firmware is loadable, which is wrong.
Lobbying for free, user-controlled hardware shouldn't depend on actual
user-perceived installation problems if it's about ideology.

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Simon Josefsson]

Simon Richter  writes:

> The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to
> be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running 
> on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so
> given that the actual hardware is non-free.

What has changed making us fear Debian's relevancy, and is compromising
on our ideals the best way to deal with that?

I recall the same situation with hardware requiring non-free software
since I started with computers and free software back in the mid 1990's.
The challenge will continue be the same as long as there is proprietary
software.  The amount of hardware compatible with free software is
enourmously larger today than it was back then.  I don't see that Debian
or other free software projects having become less relevant over the
years.  In fact, I perceive sticking to these principles (while offering
high quality products and processes) has been instrumental to shift the
proprietary software industry our way.  People will continue to talk bad
about free software, and promote proprietary software, but I am hoping
Debian will be a factor against that.

/Simon


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

"official" image terminology Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Ross Vandegrift]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
> discussion.

I had assumed "official" was in more common usage.  It seems like that's
false.  Since the cloud team uses that term, here's a bit of detail I
can offer.

The best doc that I know of is here:
  https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages
This tracks Steve's usage from earlier in the thread.  The cloud team
uses it like this too --- we probably got it from him, back when he was
on the team.  We also used to have DSA members on the team who seemed
keen on the term.

So while it doesn't appear in any foundational document, it does have
traction amongst folks that are affected by these issues.  

That page describes itself as not final - but it's changed little since
2013.  It doesn't offer an opinion on some of the issues being raised
since it just says "the image includes only software available in
Debian".

Hope that's useful,
Ross


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Simon Richter]

Hi,

On 9/8/22 08:00, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:


As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want.


It's the change we need to do in order to be consistent, so "want" is a 
pretty strong word here.


It is a marked step back from our principles and will be perceived as 
such, and it will also be a disservice to our users if we don't at the 
same time start lobbying harder for free, user-controlled computing 
infrastructure, because ultimately the future of free software hinges on 
whether there can be another generation of tinkerers, or if they will be 
locked out and relegated to working for free to add value to proprietary 
offerings.


The firmware debate is part of that bigger picture, and especially in a 
time when one of the providers of said firmware is publicly musing (i.e. 
market researching) about whether it would be okay to lock out hardware 
features until a license is provided, this is dangerous territory.


The reason I'm in favor of changing the SC is not that I believe it to 
be a good thing, but that I think we need to stay relevant for running 
on actual hardware, and changing the SC now is the only way to do so 
given that the actual hardware is non-free.


This change alone will not be sufficient, because we're still being 
Embraced, Extended and Extinguished into becoming a gratis "app" in the 
Windows Store.


   Simon


OpenPGP_0xEBF67A846AABE354.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
> 
> =
> 
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive 
> available
> for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed
> before downloading which media are the free ones.
> 
> =
 
seconded, thank you!


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

If you liked Corona, you will also enjoy the upcoming global climate disaster.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Simon Josefsson (2022-09-08 11:29:07)
> Russ Allbery  writes:
> 
> > Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
> 
> Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
> the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
> without the required 3:1 majority.
> 
> I'm worried that if we publish only non-free installers, people will
> rightly be quite confused what the Debian project thinks about the
> meaning of the DSC/DFSG.  I would personally believe that publishing
> non-free content as part of the Debian system will violate DSC/DFSG even
> if Steve's GR passed and were implemented: a 1:1 GR should not be
> sufficient to override the meaning of a foundational document.
> 
> > We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
> > current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
> 
> Like Steve's variant triggered Gunnar's modification to allow for both
> free and non-free installers to be published concurrently, what do you
> think about:
> 
>   1) Having two variants of your text -- one that replaces the free
>   installer with a new non-free installer, and one that says we will
>   publish both free and non-free installers?
> 
>   2) Remove the paragraph, effectively making your proposal orthogonal
>   to the decision which images are published?  This could be up to the
>   individual developers to decide.  Some people may want to work on a
>   free installer, and some people may want to work on a non-free
>   installer, and there doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict between
>   those two interests.
> 
> I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
> under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
> hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the Debian system.
> 
> /Simon

FWIW, I fully agree with Simon Josefsson on the above.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

signature.asc
Description: signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 10:48:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:
> 
> --
> 
> This ballot option supersedes the Debian Social Contract (a foundation
> document) under point 4.1.5 of the constitution and thus requires a 3:1
> majority.
> 
> The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
> identical to the current version in all respects except that it adds the
> following sentence to the end of point 5:
> 
> The Debian official media may include firmware that is otherwise not
> part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware that
> requires such firmware.
> 
> The Debian Project also makes the following statement on an issue of the
> day:
> 
> We will include non-free firmware packages from the "non-free-firmware"
> section of the Debian archive on our official media (installer images and
> live images). The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by
> default where the system determines that they are required, but where
> possible we will include ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu
> option, kernel command line etc.).
> 
> When the installer/live system is running we will provide information to
> the user about what firmware has been loaded (both free and non-free), and
> we will also store that information on the target system such that users
> will be able to find it later. Where non-free firmware is found to be
> necessary, the target system will also be configured to use the
> non-free-firmware component by default in the apt sources.list file. Our
> users should receive security updates and important fixes to firmware
> binaries just like any other installed software.
> 
> We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
> current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.

seconded. I'll also second the revised version of this. (I just have
refrained from doing so as its not clear to me yet whether a 'final'
one has emerged.)


-- 
cheers,
Holger

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
 ⠈⠳⣄

"It' easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled."
 (Mark Twain)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Philip Hands]

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:

...
>> But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
>> point in the process.  (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case
>> there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
>
> I disagree; this looks precisely like the change I think we should be making.

Likewise -- I think dropping the "we support ..." language makes the
meaning that we were always trying to convey much more obvious.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,GERMANY


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)]

On 2022/09/08 11:27, Phil Morrell wrote:

 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

 We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
 not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
 are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
 infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
 tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
 archive areas.


I liked Russ's suggestion a lot, and also agreed with your comments (I 
had similar thoughts when reading it initially).


I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:

"""
5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do not 
conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages are not 
formally part of the Debian system, bug fixes and security updates 
depend entirely on their upstream developers. We provide the enabling 
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug 
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate archive 
areas. We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages 
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether 
they can distribute it on their media or products.

"""

An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some 
practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. It's not 
like we provide the non-free archives and it's *wink* *wink* kind of 
official because Debian people provide it but it's not, instead it's the 
case that everything that makes Debian great really doesn't apply to 
these packages.


Also, I think a change like this is fine for this GR, but if it 
complicates things, then I think it's also worth while to tackle some 
finer points of the SC/DFSG in a follow-up GR really soon.


-Jonathan

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:27:52AM +0100, Phil Morrell wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
>> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
>> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:
>> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
>> > > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
>> > >
>> > Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against
>> > proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
>> > than a week's worth of discussion)
>> > 
>> >  5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>> > 
>> >  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
>> >  do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
>> >  created areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
>> >  been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
>> >  infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
>> >  lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
>> >  distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
>> >  areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
>> >  media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
>> >  areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
>> >  of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
>> 
>> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one 
>> very 
>> simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the 
>> day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely 
>> second a ballot option that would propose just this.
>
>In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.
>
>5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>
>We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
>not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
>are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
>infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
>tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
>archive areas.

That looks good to me - concise and clear. Thanks!

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
Dance like no one's watching. Encrypt like everyone is.
 - @torproject

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Phil Morrell]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 11:38:09AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Kurt Roeckx  writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> >> Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
> >> non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system
> >
> > As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
> > really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
> > that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.
> >
> > I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
> > you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official
> > because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
> > in that text.
> 
> I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
> document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
> discussion.  It seems easier to talk about what is considered part of
> the Debian system or not: the foundation documents imply (to me) that
> anything not following DFSG is not part of Debian.  Therefor, an
> installer that includes non-free content would not be part of Debian.
> That does not prevent the project from distributing it, we do that today
> and we distribute non-free/contrib today too without trouble.
> 
> For me it helps to think that what the Debian project ships is a
> superset of what is considered to be the Debian system.

Policy on the other hand is very explicit (perhaps unintentionally):

> The Debian system is maintained and distributed as a collection of packages. 
> The main archive area forms the Debian distribution.

By that definition, no installation media are part of the Debian system
and so are already permitted to use non-free components? Obviously
Policy is "lower" in interpretation value that Constitution or Social
Contract. It also has a note about "component", and I'd point out the
term "section" is often used too (see rewording of Proposal C).

> The Debian archive software uses the term “component” internally and
> in the Release file format to refer to the division of an archive. The
> Debian Social Contract simply refers to “areas.” This document uses
> terminology similar to the Social Contract.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Simon Josefsson]

Kurt Roeckx  writes:

> On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
>> Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today.  That
>> makes me sad.  My preference for an outcome would be along the following
>> lines.
>> 
>> ==
>> 
>> We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
>> which says:
>> 
>>Debian will remain 100% free
>> 
>>We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
>>"free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
>>Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
>>will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
>>who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
>>never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
>> 
>> Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
>> main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
>> not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.
>
> I can interprete that as having non-free available and installed by default
> is acceptable, as long as there is a way not to use the non-free part.

Sounds right, if I understand what you mean correctly.

>> We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5
>> which says:
>> 
>>Works that do not meet our free software standards
>> 
>>We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
>>do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
>>created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
>>works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
>>although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
>>CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
>>and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
>>although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
>>use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
>>tracking system and mailing lists).
>> 
>> Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
>> non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
>> support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.
>
> As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
> really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
> that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.

Agreed.  I believe both Steve's and Gunnar's proposals both assume a
particular interpretation of the DSC (and one that I disagree with), but
it is not explicit in the proposal.

> I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
> you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official
> because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
> in that text.

I don't think the word "official" is defined or used in any foundational
document, nor that its meaning is well agreed on or actually helps the
discussion.  It seems easier to talk about what is considered part of
the Debian system or not: the foundation documents imply (to me) that
anything not following DFSG is not part of Debian.  Therefor, an
installer that includes non-free content would not be part of Debian.
That does not prevent the project from distributing it, we do that today
and we distribute non-free/contrib today too without trouble.

For me it helps to think that what the Debian project ships is a
superset of what is considered to be the Debian system.

> I would also like to point out that the Secretary has the power to
> adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution, but
> not about the foundation documents.

How are disagreements over foundation documents handled in Debian?

/Simon


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Simon Josefsson]

Russ Allbery  writes:

> Possible wording, which includes the existing option A verbatim:

Thanks, I prefer this approach over Steve's initial proposal: it solves
the problem that we would override a foundational document with a GR
without the required 3:1 majority.

I'm worried that if we publish only non-free installers, people will
rightly be quite confused what the Debian project thinks about the
meaning of the DSC/DFSG.  I would personally believe that publishing
non-free content as part of the Debian system will violate DSC/DFSG even
if Steve's GR passed and were implemented: a 1:1 GR should not be
sufficient to override the meaning of a foundational document.

> We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
> current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.

Like Steve's variant triggered Gunnar's modification to allow for both
free and non-free installers to be published concurrently, what do you
think about:

  1) Having two variants of your text -- one that replaces the free
  installer with a new non-free installer, and one that says we will
  publish both free and non-free installers?

  2) Remove the paragraph, effectively making your proposal orthogonal
  to the decision which images are published?  This could be up to the
  individual developers to decide.  Some people may want to work on a
  free installer, and some people may want to work on a non-free
  installer, and there doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict between
  those two interests.

I believe the Debian project is permitted to publish non-free installers
under the current DSC/DFSG (which it actually is doing today; just
hidden), but according to the DSC it is not part of the Debian system.

/Simon


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Phil Morrell]

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 08:00:09AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:
> > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
> > >
> > Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against
> > proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
> > than a week's worth of discussion)
> > 
> >  5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> > 
> >  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
> >  do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
> >  created areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
> >  been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
> >  infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
> >  lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
> >  distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
> >  areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
> >  media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
> >  areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
> >  of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
> 
> As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very 
> simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the 
> day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely 
> second a ballot option that would propose just this.

In that spirit, some more wording suggestions and justification below.

5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

We acknowledge that our users may require the use of works that do
not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Such packages
are not part of the Debian system, but we provide the enabling
infrastructure as a convenience to our users. This includes the bug
tracking system, installation media, mailing lists and separate
archive areas.

* "some of" implies a minority, but the GR was raised due to a lack
  of available new hardware meeting this except via ROM
* "configured for use" always seemed like strange wording to me
* "enabling" rather than supporting to avoid endorsing
* "convenience to our users" shows up in some Disclaimers
* "separate" applies to the archive areas, but not the install media?
* "archive areas" to allow e.g. renaming contrib to non-free-depends
* by mentioning installation media as infrastructure, shipping it
  ourselves with firmware, it becomes superfluous to "encourage" others
  to follow our recommendation in our own Social Contract (it's my
  understanding that was there back in the day so CDs wouldn't just
  limit to main out of paranoid safety, doing a disservice to users)
* focussed on being short rather than mentioning every consequence -
  it's supposed to be a guiding mission statement, not Policy

I'd like to include something around "otherwise meets all our other high
standards" and "anything including these works will always remain
clearly identified" (like non-free Disclaimer, sadly our ISO needs to
include non-free firmware etc.) but I couldn't find a good wording.

> From my sparse reading of the discussion so far, it now seems clear that the 
> SC needs amending; not doing so and finding convoluted ways to interpret its 
> actual version risks creating more confusion and misunderstandings than it 
> solves.

Having contributed to some of those convoluted interpretations, I think
you're right that there's enough support for change. I haven't seen much
in the way of actual objections to the Images Team intention beyond the
existence of Proposal D and complaining it's a breach of the SC.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
> Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:
> 
> =
> 
> The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
> and live images) containing non-free software from the Debian archive 
> available
> for download alongside with the free media in a way that the user is informed
> before downloading which media are the free ones.
> 
> =

Not sure if at this stage you need re-seconds from people who seconded
the original version, but just in case:

Seconded.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli . z...@upsilon.cc . upsilon.cc/zack  _. ^ ._
Full professor of Computer Science  o o   o \/|V|\/
Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris o o o   <\>
Co-founder & CTO Software Heritageo o o o   /\|^|/\
Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director   '" V "'


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Richard Laager]

On 9/8/22 00:14, Russ Allbery wrote:

With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more
concise:

  5. Works that do not meet our free software standards

  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
  do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
  created areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these
  areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been
  configured for use with Debian. We encourage distributors of Debian
  to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if
  they can distribute the packages on their media. Thus, although
  non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and
  provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
  tracking system and mailing lists). The Debian official media may
  include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to
  enable use of Debian with hardware tha requires such firmware.


nit: typo "tha" should be "that"


I do think this sounds more up-to-date, and getting rid of "CDs" does feel
like an overdue edit.


Yes.


This drops the "we support their use" statement which I think is a bit
confusing; I believe the intention is that we, Debian Developers, support
the non-free packages in the sense that we upload them and answer bug
reports, but it could also be read as "we endorse their use," which we do
not and don't really want to be saying.


Yes.

Either sounds good to me. I slightly prefer the latter, for the reason 
you said.


--
Richard


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

[Didier 'OdyX' Raboud]

Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Didier 'OdyX' Raboud  writes:
> > Thanks for that proposal Russ!
> > 
> > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a
> > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ?
> 
> [...]
> 
> > What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD
> > manufacturers" with "installation media providers", replaces "on their
> > 
> > CD" with "on their installation media":
> >> The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is
> >> identical to the current version in all respects except that the point 5
> >> 
> >> reads as follows:
> >> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> >> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
> >> do
> >> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
> >> "contrib", "non-free" and "non-free-firmware" areas in our archive
> >> for
> >> these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian
> >> system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We
> >> encourage installation media providers to read the licenses of the
> >> packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the
> >> packages on their installation medias. Thus, although non-free works
> >> are
> >> not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure
> >> for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
> >> lists). The Debian official media may include firmware that is
> >> otherwise
> >> not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware
> >> tha
> >> requires such firmware.
> 
> With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more
> concise:
> 
>  5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
>  do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
>  created areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these
>  areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been
>  configured for use with Debian. We encourage distributors of Debian
>  to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if
>  they can distribute the packages on their media. Thus, although
>  non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and
>  provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
>  tracking system and mailing lists). The Debian official media may
>  include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to
>  enable use of Debian with hardware tha requires such firmware.
> 
> I do think this sounds more up-to-date, and getting rid of "CDs" does feel
> like an overdue edit.  This would also resolve how to phrase the ballot
> option (although someone's going to ask for a diff).  What does everyone
> else think about this?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

(Missing a "t" at the end of "tha*T* requires such firmware")

> Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against
> proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
> than a week's worth of discussion), I think something like this that
> reorders and trims the section down would be even better:
> 
>  5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
>  do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
>  created areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
>  been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
>  infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
>  lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
>  distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
>  areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
>  media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
>  areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
>  of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.

As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very 
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the 
day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely 
second a ballot option that would propose just this.

From my sparse reading of the discussion so far, it now seems clear that the 
SC needs amending; not doing so and finding convoluted ways to interpret its 
actual version risks creating more confusion and misunderstandings than it 
solves. And I think we need the courage to update our foundational documents 
when meaningful. Making official Debian Installer images with firmware seems 
like one of these important milestones; moments in which Debian-the-project 
needs to reflect what