Re: Filibustering general resolutions
> 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. I think this is the correct decision. > The project should decide how it wants to handle filibustering, > if it feels like doing anything about it, of course. It seems like there are only a few options. A fixed time-limit (something large but not too large, perhaps a couple months) seems like the natural solution. > But now, any GR has a veto contingent of only 6 developers. It's only a veto if a malicious group does this *indefinitely* and intentionally and I haven't seen evidence that this is happening or is about to happen. Let me know if I've missed something. This is a problem but it's one we've known about for a long time so I don't really see things as being quite as urgent as you seem to. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
> At last count, the following had sconded the previous draft, I hope > there is no problem with the changes made with this version. I have no problem with these changes. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Constitutional Amendment GR: Handling assets for the project
> I agree with the sense and letter but have a few factual, grammar and > other minor corrections, which I'd like to formally propose as > amendments. I'd appreciate it if you'd accept them. I propose each > change as a separate amendment so you may accept some or all of them; > they're numbered 1 to 14, below. > > I hereby also second the proposed resolution as is, even if you don't > accept my amendments. I'll also second the resolution as is. I also support Ian's suggestions although I don't care too much about most of the grammar, spelling, or comma changes. Several of the other changes seem to be useful clarifications. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GR Proposal: GFDL statement
> That pipeline will almost certainly be GFDL/CC-BY-SA. It's really sad > to see blood boil over these licenses. Since I am talking to people > at FSF & CC regularly, I would be more than happy to bring Debian > concerns to both groups in a, hopefuly, productive fashion.If > there's a desire for that, just get in touch with me. Thanks for the offer but I don't think the issue is a real lack of understanding between FSF, CC and Debian. There are officially delegated and long term conversations between Debian and both CC and FSF. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/
Re: A(nother) question to the candidates
Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :) On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote: > I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian > into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections > recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind > these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction. > To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which > software components go into the core system, and which have to go > into separately provided "distros"? On which criteria, in our > opinion, should we base those decisions? I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems to be related to. AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian system through two types of work (the technology people are using right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a common infrastructure as well): (1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages passed to the installer and never referred to again. (2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages. Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions. More information is on our wiki page: http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard. Quite honestly, I think there's *way* too much overlap between different CDDs to make this sort of division very practical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpa22l8fqDtF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A(nother) question to the candidates
Yes. I know I'm not a candidate but I thought I'd answer this anyway to clarify what CDDs are doing and advocating. :) On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Mario Lang wrote: > I have seen lots of discussions about CDD and splitting up Debian > into a core and more-or-less independent topic specific sections > recently. While I can perfectly understand the motivation behind > these discussions, I have one particular "fear" in this direction. > To the candidates: What do you think how we should determine which > software components go into the core system, and which have to go > into separately provided "distros"? On which criteria, in our > opinion, should we base those decisions? I'm not sure who is advocating this vision of CDDs your question seems to be related to. AIUI the dominant CDD vision (the one being pushed by Debian-Edu/Skolelinux, Debian-NP, and some others) is a framework that allows people to create Custom Distribution *fully* within a Debian system through two types of work (the technology people are using right now is different but we all think it would be great to work on a common infrastructure as well): (1) Custom package selection: some people are big on tasks; others like Meta-Packages; others are happy with a list of packages passed to the installer and never referred to again. (2) Custom package configuration. The only compelling solution I've heard of to do this within Debian is the addition of low-priority or un-asked Debconf questions to existing packages. Now obviously, achieving these goals is going to take some time and those of us that would like usable distros in the near future are going to need to find (and in fact have found) interim solutions. More information is on our wiki page: http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?CustomDebian In any case, I don't know know of any CDD developers who are advocating breaking up Debian into a core system and other bits. I have heard something like this discussed in terms of making releases more easy by limiting a release to a small core part of the distro. CDDs may have been brought up in this regard. Quite honestly, I think there's *way* too much overlap between different CDDs to make this sort of division very practical. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding though. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Short memory. Don't some FSF machines use Debian? I think basically all of them do. It should go without saying: sans non-free. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 05:32:13PM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Short memory. Don't some FSF machines use Debian? I think basically all of them do. It should go without saying: sans non-free. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social > contract which change the direction of the project. I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current social contract leaves open the possibility of having more than one idea about the direction of the project and almost any non-trivial "clairication" will, in the mind of some people, change that direction. In any case, I appreciate the fact that you seem to be committed to finding a draft that minimizes the size of that group while making things less ambiguous in ways you think are important. Regards, Mako P.S. The third person stuff is kind of freaky. :) -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp9dy7OhJvsP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 08:41:01AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social > contract which change the direction of the project. I fear that recent traffic on this list demonstrates that our current social contract leaves open the possibility of having more than one idea about the direction of the project and almost any non-trivial "clairication" will, in the mind of some people, change that direction. In any case, I appreciate the fact that you seem to be committed to finding a draft that minimizes the size of that group while making things less ambiguous in ways you think are important. Regards, Mako P.S. The third person stuff is kind of freaky. :) -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:38:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing > > > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B? > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > The compromise is reached by drawing firm limits what around what > > Debian is (or what and how it will remain) while drawing different > > limits around what it can distribute. > > How does that work? Seems to me that you can achieve A associates > with B, or A does not associate with B, but neither are compromise. You seem to be conflating "distributes" with "will remain" into a single concept: "associates." I'm not doing this. > The problem with the current subtitle is that it appears to extend > to packages which it shouldn't cover. > > But the current subtitle was not intended as a definition of Debian as > a whole, only the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". You can see this in > numerous places in the social contract. I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to that which AJ suggested. > > Just because Debian developers have gotten together together to work > > on free software does mean their distribution is a totally Free > > Software. I think this fact needs to be immediately clear in the > > subtitle and I don't think it is in this suggested version. > > The problem with your "immediately clear" idea is that if it were possible > to be "immediately clear" on this topic we wouldn't have a need for the > social contract and dfsg. > > The whole point of writing the social contract, and the whole point of > writing the dfsg, is that these concepts aren't intuitively obvious but > need to be spelled out for people. In the next paragraph I said: "If we have the ability to make a firm and largely unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the body, we should." I think "immediately clear" is a goal; it may not be one we will achieve but it has to be one we push for. I'm just saying that I think since the subtitle will -- for better or for worse -- get more attention than the body text. We should be careful in drafting it so that it's can stand on its own as well as possible -- even if it's not perfect without the supporting body text. > > The subtitles are the bits that get quoted all over the place -- > > like it or not. If we have the ability to make a firm and largely > > unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the > > body, we should. > > Which begs the questions: how large does the unambiguousness need to > be, how much precision (verbosity) can we tolerate, and what flavors of > ambiguity can we live with? We'll have to settle for as good as we can do. My critique was that I thought the proposed text was not there yet. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpU8ZYecepT2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and > useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea. A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical ideas. I doubt that calling those beliefs stupid is the most effective way to campaign on behalf of your amendment. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpQLDQcS5dVm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 03:38:20PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing > > > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B? > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:10:30PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > The compromise is reached by drawing firm limits what around what > > Debian is (or what and how it will remain) while drawing different > > limits around what it can distribute. > > How does that work? Seems to me that you can achieve A associates > with B, or A does not associate with B, but neither are compromise. You seem to be conflating "distributes" with "will remain" into a single concept: "associates." I'm not doing this. > The problem with the current subtitle is that it appears to extend > to packages which it shouldn't cover. > > But the current subtitle was not intended as a definition of Debian as > a whole, only the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". You can see this in > numerous places in the social contract. I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to that which AJ suggested. > > Just because Debian developers have gotten together together to work > > on free software does mean their distribution is a totally Free > > Software. I think this fact needs to be immediately clear in the > > subtitle and I don't think it is in this suggested version. > > The problem with your "immediately clear" idea is that if it were possible > to be "immediately clear" on this topic we wouldn't have a need for the > social contract and dfsg. > > The whole point of writing the social contract, and the whole point of > writing the dfsg, is that these concepts aren't intuitively obvious but > need to be spelled out for people. In the next paragraph I said: "If we have the ability to make a firm and largely unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the body, we should." I think "immediately clear" is a goal; it may not be one we will achieve but it has to be one we push for. I'm just saying that I think since the subtitle will -- for better or for worse -- get more attention than the body text. We should be careful in drafting it so that it's can stand on its own as well as possible -- even if it's not perfect without the supporting body text. > > The subtitles are the bits that get quoted all over the place -- > > like it or not. If we have the ability to make a firm and largely > > unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the > > body, we should. > > Which begs the questions: how large does the unambiguousness need to > be, how much precision (verbosity) can we tolerate, and what flavors of > ambiguity can we live with? We'll have to settle for as good as we can do. My critique was that I thought the proposed text was not there yet. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:14:15PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote: > Free Software will stay in Debian just because it is preffered and > useful. Not because of some stupid philosophical idea. A lot Debian developers happen to care about these philosophical ideas. I doubt that calling those beliefs stupid is the most effective way to campaign on behalf of your amendment. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not > recommended, or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms > where you have to engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk > about stuff. Unofficial or unsupported seems to me to be a more defensible description of what we have now. If the point of this suggestion is to codify the current situation (and I assume it is), I think either of these terms might got a long way toward doing so. > > If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this > > *is* an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a > > moment (as I have since for the last half decade) that Debian > > distributing software from the FTP site does not imply inclusion > > in the Debian system or being part of Debian. > > The "Debian system" is fine; but "Debian" refers to the project as a > whole about as often as it refers to the contents of "main". > > How about: > > 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software > > We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free > software. As there are many definitions of free software, we > include the guidelines we use to determine if software is > "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run > non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the Debian > Distribution depend on an item of non-free software. > > and > > 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards > > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of > programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in > our archive for this software. The software in these > directories is not part of the Debian Distribution, although it > has been configured for use with Debian. Thus, although > non-free software isn't a part of the Debian Distribution, we > support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our > bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software > packages. > > ? This is much more clear than Raul's suggested change IMHO. I appreciate this. > > You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one > > that's about what Debian distributes. > > And that's the question. Is it our distribution that's meant to be > 100% free, or is it our project? I think that yours is one creative way of trying to clarify the current situation without making most people feel like the strength of their project's stated commitment to the creation of a free software distribution is being smashed. I think there is room for improvement. In terms of answering your question though: I think that's pretty much what we're voting on. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpQAne4q4qje.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know > that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make > sense. Would > > New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free" > > be equivalent? It would be equivalent... ...and suffer from all the same problems of being uninspirational, impossibly vague without the rest of the social contract to elaborate it, and leading to more than one quite different interpretation (as discussion on this list seems already beginning to demonstrate). Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpWzTylF41Bt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:18:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck > > between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a > > project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those > > who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free > > software. > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B? The compromise is reached by drawing firm limits what around what Debian is (or what and how it will remain) while drawing different limits around what it can distribute. You're right in thinking that this is not the most elegant solution (to say the least) but it got people to work together. > > > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free > > > > You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's > > about what Debian distributes. IMHO, what Debian defines itself as is > > more important than what bits they move around. > > False. What Debian is made of is defined in the preamble: > >The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made >common cause to create a free operating system. > > I'm not changing this at all. The current subtitle reads to me as a definition of what Debian is and a commitment to how it will remains. Your proposal reads to me as a statement about how some of the software Debian distributes is licensed. If this isn't your intention, I apologize for implying that it was -- but your intentions are not being served by the current suggested text IMHO. Just because Debian developers have gotten together together to work on free software does mean their distribution is a totally Free Software. I think this fact needs to be immediately clear in the subtitle and I don't think it is in this suggested version. > > Moreover, the way you've worded this makes me think that as long as > > Debian has a single GPL'ed shell script in a sea of non-free software, > > we're doing our job. > > That is an ambiguous interpretation of the subtitle if you ignore the > rest of the social contract. The real mystery is why people want to get > all the meaning from the subtitles and ignore the rest of the contract. The subtitles should be an accurate reflection of rest of the document. The subtitles are the bits that get quoted all over the place -- like it or not. If we have the ability to make a firm and largely unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the body, we should. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpMhMIPs7qWf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:26:56PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Sure, tell people it's not official, or not supported, or not > recommended, or whatever, but don't choose meanings for your terms > where you have to engage in horrendous circumlocutions just to talk > about stuff. Unofficial or unsupported seems to me to be a more defensible description of what we have now. If the point of this suggestion is to codify the current situation (and I assume it is), I think either of these terms might got a long way toward doing so. > > If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this > > *is* an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a > > moment (as I have since for the last half decade) that Debian > > distributing software from the FTP site does not imply inclusion > > in the Debian system or being part of Debian. > > The "Debian system" is fine; but "Debian" refers to the project as a > whole about as often as it refers to the contents of "main". > > How about: > > 1. The Debian Distribution Will Remain 100% Free Software > > We promise to keep the Debian Distribution entirely free > software. As there are many definitions of free software, we > include the guidelines we use to determine if software is > "free" below. We will support our users who develop and run > non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the Debian > Distribution depend on an item of non-free software. > > and > > 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards > > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of > programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software > Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in > our archive for this software. The software in these > directories is not part of the Debian Distribution, although it > has been configured for use with Debian. Thus, although > non-free software isn't a part of the Debian Distribution, we > support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our > bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software > packages. > > ? This is much more clear than Raul's suggested change IMHO. I appreciate this. > > You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one > > that's about what Debian distributes. > > And that's the question. Is it our distribution that's meant to be > 100% free, or is it our project? I think that yours is one creative way of trying to clarify the current situation without making most people feel like the strength of their project's stated commitment to the creation of a free software distribution is being smashed. I think there is room for improvement. In terms of answering your question though: I think that's pretty much what we're voting on. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:26:50PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > I don't like "Shall Continue", as it feels as though you have to know > that you're reading a second-edition social contract for it to make > sense. Would > > New: "1. Debian Will Continue to Distribute Software That's 100% Free" > > be equivalent? It would be equivalent... ...and suffer from all the same problems of being uninspirational, impossibly vague without the rest of the social contract to elaborate it, and leading to more than one quite different interpretation (as discussion on this list seems already beginning to demonstrate). Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 09:18:41AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck > > between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a > > project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those > > who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free > > software. > > How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing > feature is that A wants to have nothing to do with B? The compromise is reached by drawing firm limits what around what Debian is (or what and how it will remain) while drawing different limits around what it can distribute. You're right in thinking that this is not the most elegant solution (to say the least) but it got people to work together. > > > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free > > > > You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's > > about what Debian distributes. IMHO, what Debian defines itself as is > > more important than what bits they move around. > > False. What Debian is made of is defined in the preamble: > >The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made >common cause to create a free operating system. > > I'm not changing this at all. The current subtitle reads to me as a definition of what Debian is and a commitment to how it will remains. Your proposal reads to me as a statement about how some of the software Debian distributes is licensed. If this isn't your intention, I apologize for implying that it was -- but your intentions are not being served by the current suggested text IMHO. Just because Debian developers have gotten together together to work on free software does mean their distribution is a totally Free Software. I think this fact needs to be immediately clear in the subtitle and I don't think it is in this suggested version. > > Moreover, the way you've worded this makes me think that as long as > > Debian has a single GPL'ed shell script in a sea of non-free software, > > we're doing our job. > > That is an ambiguous interpretation of the subtitle if you ignore the > rest of the social contract. The real mystery is why people want to get > all the meaning from the subtitles and ignore the rest of the contract. The subtitles should be an accurate reflection of rest of the document. The subtitles are the bits that get quoted all over the place -- like it or not. If we have the ability to make a firm and largely unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the body, we should. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" > > If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct > interpretations of this phrase. > > [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will > remain completely free. > > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing > only free software. > > If we look at what Debian actually does, and/or the rest of the social > contract, [A] makes sense, but [B] contradicts both the rest of the > social contract and the current structure of Debian. It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one way or another! If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this *is* an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a moment (as I have since for the last half decade) that Debian distributing software from the FTP site does not imply inclusion in the Debian system or being part of Debian. It must be a common type of confusion because that's pretty much word for word what Section 5 says. If non-free is *not* part of Debian (as the social contract currently implies) but is distributed from our FTP servers (as the social contract currently commits us to doing) we must assume that Debian distributes non-free software but that this act distribution does not imply that is part of Debian. I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free software. This proposal seems like it will alienate this first group and I think this is a very bad idea for reasons you've described in other messages on this mailing list. > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's about what Debian distributes. IMHO, what Debian defines itself as is more important than what bits they move around. Moreover, the way you've worded this makes me think that as long as Debian has a single GPL'ed shell script in a sea of non-free software, we're doing our job. I guess that means I think it needs work. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpIrKBGiqXZx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 12:28:38AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > Old: "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" > > If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct > interpretations of this phrase. > > [A] Software which Debian distributes which is completely free will > remain completely free. > > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing > only free software. > > If we look at what Debian actually does, and/or the rest of the social > contract, [A] makes sense, but [B] contradicts both the rest of the > social contract and the current structure of Debian. It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one way or another! If you look at both of your examples, you will realize that this *is* an assumption you are making. Why don't you assume for a moment (as I have since for the last half decade) that Debian distributing software from the FTP site does not imply inclusion in the Debian system or being part of Debian. It must be a common type of confusion because that's pretty much word for word what Section 5 says. If non-free is *not* part of Debian (as the social contract currently implies) but is distributed from our FTP servers (as the social contract currently commits us to doing) we must assume that Debian distributes non-free software but that this act distribution does not imply that is part of Debian. I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free software. This proposal seems like it will alienate this first group and I think this is a very bad idea for reasons you've described in other messages on this mailing list. > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's about what Debian distributes. IMHO, what Debian defines itself as is more important than what bits they move around. Moreover, the way you've worded this makes me think that as long as Debian has a single GPL'ed shell script in a sea of non-free software, we're doing our job. I guess that means I think it needs work. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free > Software and then eventually see "Oh, there's this non-free > stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there." I think that with the old non-free question, most people installing Debian (the vast majority even) select yes to non-free, even if there is nothing in non-free that they want (or know they want) and then end up installing non-free software that was listed in their cache or showed up in a default search on the website when perhaps they would have been just as happy with a free replacement. I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a way that its easy for users that really want non-free software but not so easy that people instinctively choose it en mass is a good gaol One benefit is that it all ends up being a lot less controversial than the sorts of proposals that spawn this thread. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpWR2ZrSeZ0m.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's not currently a relevant issue. > > > > > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would > > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when > > > non-free contains packages some people rely on. > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > > orphaned and broken. > > > > > > > > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?" > > I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. Obviously, some people would. That's why we need to vote. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpD6Rniupoul.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Another Non-Free Proposal
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:16:16AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > I'd hope people try out Debian because either it's cool or Free > Software and then eventually see "Oh, there's this non-free > stuff. Let's see if there's something useful there." I think that with the old non-free question, most people installing Debian (the vast majority even) select yes to non-free, even if there is nothing in non-free that they want (or know they want) and then end up installing non-free software that was listed in their cache or showed up in a default search on the website when perhaps they would have been just as happy with a free replacement. I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a way that its easy for users that really want non-free software but not so easy that people instinctively choose it en mass is a good gaol One benefit is that it all ends up being a lot less controversial than the sorts of proposals that spawn this thread. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 10:00:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > > That's not currently a relevant issue. > > > > > > That said: a vote to get rid of non-free when non-free is empty would > > > have different significance than a vote to get rid of non-free when > > > non-free contains packages some people rely on. > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:52:36AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > Now, assume that non-free is not empty, but all the packages in it are > > orphaned and broken. > > > > > > > > It becomes a problem of "Where do you draw the line?" > > I would not draw a line which gets rid of non-free as it currently exists. Obviously, some people would. That's why we need to vote. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revoking non-free less violently
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote: > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out > more progressively? It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of process to help people transition away from non-free or, much more likely IMHO, to move it fully intact outside of Debian. I think that might mean bug tracking addresses in control files that can be switched to a different (non-Debian) location and a changed line in the sources.list and some process and policy type decisions. So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus on the details. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp3NMF8EJjrY.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Revoking non-free less violently
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:57:20AM -0600, Brian McGroarty wrote: > Instead of severing non-free all at once, why not try and phase it out > more progressively? It doesn't take a wild imagination to guess that if any proposal to remove non-free passes it will either involve or lead to some sort of process to help people transition away from non-free or, much more likely IMHO, to move it fully intact outside of Debian. I think that might mean bug tracking addresses in control files that can be switched to a different (non-Debian) location and a changed line in the sources.list and some process and policy type decisions. So far, people seem to be taking the position that it will better to first vote on whether or not we're going to move in this direction (a super majority decision) and then, once that decision is made to focus on the details. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale > >> > archive changes isn't presently formally defined at all. > >> > Informally, it appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian > >> > Archive Administrators (who, the last time I checked, were not > >> > official delegates of the Debian Project Leader[1]). > >> > >> So, the proscription in the SC is the only thing that stands > >> between an admins whim to remove non-free? > > > I think it's the only formal or structural impediment, yes. But > > In which case this needs to be pointed out; since this is likely to > be the last chance that the mere mortal developers have of having > any say in the process of elimination of non free. The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care. In either (IMHO) unlikely case, their decision could be overruled by the developers. I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move ahead with something so clearly controversial, public, and central in Debian's history without a mandate. > If this proposal passes, wouldn't it be a mandate to also remove > non-free, and the admins shall be acting in accordance with the > wishes of the developers? Branden's justification makes it *explicitly* clear that this is not the case. I don't see how anyone could see that as a mandate as its worded and justified in a way that explicitly claims that this is not the case. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpk8vNSQmjGL.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 07:15:13PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 15:41:15 -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 08:31:58PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 13:16:54 -0500, Branden Robinson > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> > >> > No, you're wrong. The mechanism for achieving large-scale > >> > archive changes isn't presently formally defined at all. > >> > Informally, it appears to be the exclusive domain of the Debian > >> > Archive Administrators (who, the last time I checked, were not > >> > official delegates of the Debian Project Leader[1]). > >> > >> So, the proscription in the SC is the only thing that stands > >> between an admins whim to remove non-free? > > > I think it's the only formal or structural impediment, yes. But > > In which case this needs to be pointed out; since this is likely to > be the last chance that the mere mortal developers have of having > any say in the process of elimination of non free. The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care. In either (IMHO) unlikely case, their decision could be overruled by the developers. I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move ahead with something so clearly controversial, public, and central in Debian's history without a mandate. > If this proposal passes, wouldn't it be a mandate to also remove > non-free, and the admins shall be acting in accordance with the > wishes of the developers? Branden's justification makes it *explicitly* clear that this is not the case. I don't see how anyone could see that as a mandate as its worded and justified in a way that explicitly claims that this is not the case. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text > > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the > > Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in > > there. You could probably lose the "as freely" and just have it say > > "we will license them in a manner..." and it would make sense. > > Hmm. Branden already amended his proposal to drop the "as" (and I > followed suit). You'll have to propose dropping the "freely" > separately :) Well then... I'd like to propose dropping the word "freely" altogether. :) Currently the text reads: "we will license them freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." I'd think it should say: "we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." It seems to me that if we license them in a manner consistent with the DFSG, they will automatically be licensed freely and as people have brought up in other parts of this thread, "freely" is a little awkward and confusing. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpdLTRcCGLcP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:09:42PM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 06:14:24PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > > Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text > > reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the > > Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in > > there. You could probably lose the "as freely" and just have it say > > "we will license them in a manner..." and it would make sense. > > Hmm. Branden already amended his proposal to drop the "as" (and I > followed suit). You'll have to propose dropping the "freely" > separately :) Well then... I'd like to propose dropping the word "freely" altogether. :) Currently the text reads: "we will license them freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." I'd think it should say: "we will license them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." It seems to me that if we license them in a manner consistent with the DFSG, they will automatically be licensed freely and as people have brought up in other parts of this thread, "freely" is a little awkward and confusing. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:41:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many > things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation > (rationale point 2) and most of the "editorial" changes, but violently > disagree with changing the use of "software" from its true meaning to > something apparently meaning "programs" (rationale point 4). Two things: One, claiming "its true meaning" presupposes a whole lot. I understand your position because I'm up to speed on -legal (many readers of -vote are not) but I still think that this is a pretty risky thing to say. Two, AIUI, rational point 4 says exactly the opposite of what you say above. It says, "This proposal expands the language of our commitment to freedom beyond just "software." It also aims to retitle the title of the first section of the Social Contract from "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" to "Debian Will Remain 100% Free." Not only does this not change the use of "software" to something apparently meaning "programs" but in fact clarifies the exact opposite. Did you read the wdiff wrong, mistype, or am I missing something? If it's the first option, check out Richard Braakman's page. It's much more readable. If it's the last bit, please correct me. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgprNymTuwY86.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 01:41:40AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > I think I agree with the comment that this amendment mixes too many > things into one proposal. For example, I agree with the generalisation > (rationale point 2) and most of the "editorial" changes, but violently > disagree with changing the use of "software" from its true meaning to > something apparently meaning "programs" (rationale point 4). Two things: One, claiming "its true meaning" presupposes a whole lot. I understand your position because I'm up to speed on -legal (many readers of -vote are not) but I still think that this is a pretty risky thing to say. Two, AIUI, rational point 4 says exactly the opposite of what you say above. It says, "This proposal expands the language of our commitment to freedom beyond just "software." It also aims to retitle the title of the first section of the Social Contract from "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software" to "Debian Will Remain 100% Free." Not only does this not change the use of "software" to something apparently meaning "programs" but in fact clarifies the exact opposite. Did you read the wdiff wrong, mistype, or am I missing something? If it's the first option, check out Richard Braakman's page. It's much more readable. If it's the last bit, please correct me. :) Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:04:40AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to > read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html > > I've used and tags to mark insertions and deletions, and > I tried to split them into more logical chunks than wdiff chose. > I have also added stylesheet directives to color the insertions and > deletions differently. Thanks Richard, this is very helpful. It's similar to what you can get with 'wdiff -p' or 'wdiff -l' and much more readable than the default output. Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in there. You could probably lose the "as freely" and just have it say "we will license them in a manner..." and it would make sense. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgprYF01kzcmB.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 02:04:40AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: > I've created an HTML version of the amendment that I find easier to > read and understand than the wdiff output. It's available at > > http://www.xs4all.nl/~dark/draft-sc-amendment-20031030.html > > I've used and tags to mark insertions and deletions, and > I tried to split them into more logical chunks than wdiff chose. > I have also added stylesheet directives to color the insertions and > deletions differently. Thanks Richard, this is very helpful. It's similar to what you can get with 'wdiff -p' or 'wdiff -l' and much more readable than the default output. Also, in the first sentence in the second section, the proposed text reads: "we will license them as freely in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines." I think there is a residual "as" in there. You could probably lose the "as freely" and just have it say "we will license them in a manner..." and it would make sense. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:33:39PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can > someone tell me what's wrong with this email? I'm getting a correct signature with the key thats listed on db.debian.org. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgpYWNubodzir.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Second Call for votes for the Constitutional Amendment GR to disambiguate section 4.1.5
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:33:39PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote: > Apparently I'm doing something wrong when signing messages. Can > someone tell me what's wrong with this email? I'm getting a correct signature with the key thats listed on db.debian.org. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.yukidoke.org/ pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
