Re: Debian's custom use of Condorcet and later-no-harm
Hallo, the Condorcet criterion and the later-no-harm criterion are incompatible. Therefore, the fact that Debian's Condorcet method violates the later-no-harm criterion doesn't come from the order of its checks. Markus Schulze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1whipv-bk...@mailbox.alumni.tu-berlin.de
Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
Hallo, actually, the discussion surrounding supermajorities in Condorcet goes back to 2000. See e.g.: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2000/11/msg00156.html Between 2000 and 2002, this issue was discussed off-list resp. at the Debian-EM Joint Committee mailing list. See also section 7 of my paper: http://m-schulze.webhop.net/schulze1.pdf Markus Schulze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
On 10/5/06, Anthony Towns wrote: On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 02:57:33PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote: > Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for this > violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future. You do realise we're going to voluntarily stop it immediately after releasing etch anyway, right? Well, actually, I don't. I have read all recent (>= Sep 16) mails on debian-vote, and I'm unsure about what the situation will be after Etch. But for now I'm concerned about the current situation. I can't really believe that the DPL or RMs would truly be so clueless than to believe that either 1) these firmwares are the "preferred form of the work for making modifications" mentioned in GNU GPL or 2) it's legal to distribute them without such a "preferred form" So it seems to me that you are lying when saying that you believe this to be legal. This would also mean that you are lying when saying that Debian wouldn't do anything illegal. If I am wrong in this, then it seems that Debian has completely failed to select proper people to these important positions. If the DPL and RMs don't know even the basics of what is legal and what is illegal conserning the software, then how can Debian ever survive? (And if I am right, then what future is there for a project where DPL and RMs knowingly act illegally while claiming it to be legal.) Of course I am NOT a lawyer. Still I am a programmer and I find it unbelievable that such a blobs of "thousands of bytes of hex code" wouldn't have any other source for them. Even clearer seems the question of whether one can distribute binaries without the source under GNU GPL because one of the *basic* ideas of GNU GPL is to give the source to those who have the binary. -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Kernel Firmware issue: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
On 10/6/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'd defer to Larry Doolittle on this one, but I think unless we have some reason to think there is another form used as source code, it's fine to consider the only codes our source code - for all we know, it was written that way. Best of all would be to get clarifications of what type each firmware is, but I doubt that's easy in all cases. However, if we strongly suspect that we don't have a valid permission to modify, distribute and so on, run a mile. I'd like to note a message[1] by Frank Küster concerning this on debian-vote which wasn't posted to debian-legal. A quote from that message: : In making the list, I left off all cases where I had any doubt. : I am not perfect, but I have plenty of experience using and writing : firmware of many kinds. I would be very surprised if any of the : listed firmware is not derived from a human-legible design file of : one form or another. : : So while it is perhaps a polite excuse that "we don't know for sure : if these thousands of bytes of hex code were ever compiled from source", : no sane person would bet against it. (And my answer[2] was that IMHO it's not "a polite excuse" but "a blatant attempt to knowingly violate the copyright law without actually admitting the violation".) [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00090.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00102.html -- Markus Laire
Re: are GPLed sourceless firmwares legal to distribute ?
On 10/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Frank - > So the real question is whether we want to do that, whether in the > particular cases there's in fact any doubt, etc. In making the list, I left off all cases where I had any doubt. I am not perfect, but I have plenty of experience using and writing firmware of many kinds. I would be very surprised if any of the listed firmware is not derived from a human-legible design file of one form or another. So while it is perhaps a polite excuse that "we don't know for sure if these thousands of bytes of hex code were ever compiled from source", no sane person would bet against it. I don't think "polite excuse" is proper term for this. IMHO it's a blatant attempt to knowingly violate the copyright law without actually admitting the violation. But unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much I could actually do in this case to stop this. I'll try to do what I can by voicing my opposition to this as a user of Debian. Hopefully (but I doubt this) someone in Debian will get sued for this violation in Etch, to stop such a behaviour in the future. -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On 9/28/06, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) firmware under the GPL, but with missing source. The GPL is free, but > the absence of source code for the firmware blobs makes it a violation of > the GPL, and thus undistributable. Here, the upstream license is "GPL", which complies with the DFSG, and the driver is therefore included if we are "legally allowed to do so". The GPL *does* grant us the right to distribute binaries without source. It also requires us to do things we cannot factually do (namely, provide the source in the same place, or upon request with written offer etc.). But I understood the phrasing of Manojs proposal that it doesn't matter whether we can actually fulfill all requirements, as long as we can distribute. You are wrong. GPLv2[1] section 7 says, among other things "If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy ... your obligations under this License ... then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." And without the source (or a written offer mentioned in section 3) you can't fullfill the section 3 of GPLv2 and so you can't distribute at all. [1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD
Re: [AMENDMENT]: Release Etch now, with source-less but legal and freely licensed firmware
On 9/29/06, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now, the RMs seem to have some notion, from the hurried discussion we had > yesterday, that they seem to interpret your post as allowing to distribute > sourceless GPLed firmware, because the GPL licence is DFSG free. Er, yes, because that's what the resolution *says*. It says that for firmware in etch we're only going to worry about licenses, *not* source. How can you say so? It *also* says "as long as we are legally allowed to do so". When speaking of GPL, if you are worrying about license and what is legally allowed, then you are automatically also worrying about source. There is no way Debian is legally allowed to distribute sourceless GPLed firmware. Section 3 of GPLv2 makes it clear that it's just not possible. I hope you are not yielding to the pressure to release an Etch which would break copyright law, but unfortunately this seems to be the case :( -- Markus Laire Disclaimer: IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:10:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, spim may be an exception, but as soon as you speak about > libraries, and different versions from different sources of those, you > are starting to do into the .rpm dependency hell problem. yes, but i think the most things in non-free are user-programs, documentations and binary drivers. And this are things which have not a great impact of the stability of a system whether they come from a .deb .rpm or .tar.gz >> Yes the installation system of sarge will definitely an improvement. But >> main package still recommend or suggest non-free package which is some >> kind of advertising and promoting of non-free software. > > And ? Where is this problem. We claim that we will not make base > dependent on non-free item, not that we will totally ignore those. Also, > it is quite hidden info, and a casual user will never even notice those > probably. i think this "advertising" will see at least everyone who install his programs with apt-get. Is it a problem? For you maybe not. For other it may be a problem. But i think it is a fact that on this way Debian promote non-free programs and may lead people to use non-free program (for more details see my first mail) >> If i talk from the homepage i don't mean something like advertising >> banners or something like this. But for example, if a user search in the > > Well, you speak about the homepage, and this mean the actual home page, > and the text you can read on it. What you seem to imply is the full > content of the web site, and especially those stuff which is well hidden > from casual observation. ok, maybe i could have explain it more correctly. For me "homepage" was a synonym with "services which were offered through www.debian.org". But i think there are many users who uses this package database and if i search a mp3 player and don't think a lot about free vs. non-free this search can lead me to non-free software even if there would have been a free program for my needs. And i think Debian should lead there users to Free Software and not to non-free Software. Also i think if you see all these points, it's hard to explain the user that non-free isn't part of the Debian OS as i have already wrote in my first mail. >> not more than now. If its is no more part of Debian than main package will >> not suggest or recommend these packages and you will not find them in the >> package database on the Debian homepage. > > And i seriously believe that removing recomends and suggests will be a > bad thing. If this is indeed the case, it is indeed one more reason not > to drop non-free, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't think recommends an suggests should be removed at all, but Debian main packages shouldn't recommend or suggest non-free packages, if non-free is really not part of the Debain OS than i think the Debian OS shouldn't recommend or suggest these software. > Except by being maintained by the exact same set of debian developers. Yes, but maybe also from some people who are not Debian Developers? But this work from this people would have nothing to do with Debian. This would be activities from Debian Developers beside there activities as DD and not as part as there job as DD. Cheers, Markus
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 20:10:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Well, spim may be an exception, but as soon as you speak about > libraries, and different versions from different sources of those, you > are starting to do into the .rpm dependency hell problem. yes, but i think the most things in non-free are user-programs, documentations and binary drivers. And this are things which have not a great impact of the stability of a system whether they come from a .deb .rpm or .tar.gz >> Yes the installation system of sarge will definitely an improvement. But >> main package still recommend or suggest non-free package which is some >> kind of advertising and promoting of non-free software. > > And ? Where is this problem. We claim that we will not make base > dependent on non-free item, not that we will totally ignore those. Also, > it is quite hidden info, and a casual user will never even notice those > probably. i think this "advertising" will see at least everyone who install his programs with apt-get. Is it a problem? For you maybe not. For other it may be a problem. But i think it is a fact that on this way Debian promote non-free programs and may lead people to use non-free program (for more details see my first mail) >> If i talk from the homepage i don't mean something like advertising >> banners or something like this. But for example, if a user search in the > > Well, you speak about the homepage, and this mean the actual home page, > and the text you can read on it. What you seem to imply is the full > content of the web site, and especially those stuff which is well hidden > from casual observation. ok, maybe i could have explain it more correctly. For me "homepage" was a synonym with "services which were offered through www.debian.org". But i think there are many users who uses this package database and if i search a mp3 player and don't think a lot about free vs. non-free this search can lead me to non-free software even if there would have been a free program for my needs. And i think Debian should lead there users to Free Software and not to non-free Software. Also i think if you see all these points, it's hard to explain the user that non-free isn't part of the Debian OS as i have already wrote in my first mail. >> not more than now. If its is no more part of Debian than main package will >> not suggest or recommend these packages and you will not find them in the >> package database on the Debian homepage. > > And i seriously believe that removing recomends and suggests will be a > bad thing. If this is indeed the case, it is indeed one more reason not > to drop non-free, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't think recommends an suggests should be removed at all, but Debian main packages shouldn't recommend or suggest non-free packages, if non-free is really not part of the Debain OS than i think the Debian OS shouldn't recommend or suggest these software. > Except by being maintained by the exact same set of debian developers. Yes, but maybe also from some people who are not Debian Developers? But this work from this people would have nothing to do with Debian. This would be activities from Debian Developers beside there activities as DD and not as part as there job as DD. Cheers, Markus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:20:12 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Err, the unattended addition of random third party packages of varrying > quality is on of the cause of the unstability of .rpm based systems. On a standard Debian, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake,.. system i have not seen any stability changes if someone installed a programm like spim. It maybe another situation if you install additional kernel modules like nvidia drivers, but thats binary drivers and there is no different whether this binary comes from a deb, rpm or tar.gz package. >> Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free >> Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i >> mentioned in my first mail. > > Ah ? I don't see on-free advertized on the front page, i may be blind > though, or otherwise havez missed that. Also, i am lead to believe that > as of the sarge release, non-free will no more be proposed to new > installs. Yes the installation system of sarge will definitely an improvement. But main package still recommend or suggest non-free package which is some kind of advertising and promoting of non-free software. If i talk from the homepage i don't mean something like advertising banners or something like this. But for example, if a user search in the package database on the Debian site he will by default search also in the non-free archive and by the right keyword the result will show him non-free software, i think this is also some kind of promoting. > Well, you find their call for help on the debian user support lists, > which even if you don't respond to them, take a certain amount of time > only to read them, and distinguish them from other legitimate help > requests. but i think you have this questions independent from the question whether Debian drops non-free or not. I think the Debian user list is, like the name says, in the first place a user list. Users sometimes use non-free software or non-free drivers, and than users asks users for help on a users list. This has nothing to do with the question whether or not Debian will distribute non-free. Today there are such questions and they will be there in the feature independent from the non-free decision. >> But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I >> think > > And, nothing is stopping the technical comite to take this decision and > remove the package. Even you could, i think, appeal to the techincal > comitee if the maintainer is not active enough on a bug report asking > for a reasoned removal of the package. But i doubt you care enough for > that, but would be happy to be proved wrong. if a normal user can ask for removing some programs from non-free and this will be considered from independent people (not only the maintainer) than i will do this. So far i have not known such a place. >> But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian. > > Naturally it would, at least it would be so in the imaginations of our > users. not more than now. If its is no more part of Debian than main package will not suggest or recommend these packages and you will not find them in the package database on the Debian homepage. It would be there like apt-get.org or backports.org or rpm sources for other Distributions but it would nothing have to do directly with Debian. Cheers! Markus
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 14:20:12 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Err, the unattended addition of random third party packages of varrying > quality is on of the cause of the unstability of .rpm based systems. On a standard Debian, RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake,.. system i have not seen any stability changes if someone installed a programm like spim. It maybe another situation if you install additional kernel modules like nvidia drivers, but thats binary drivers and there is no different whether this binary comes from a deb, rpm or tar.gz package. >> Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free >> Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i >> mentioned in my first mail. > > Ah ? I don't see on-free advertized on the front page, i may be blind > though, or otherwise havez missed that. Also, i am lead to believe that > as of the sarge release, non-free will no more be proposed to new > installs. Yes the installation system of sarge will definitely an improvement. But main package still recommend or suggest non-free package which is some kind of advertising and promoting of non-free software. If i talk from the homepage i don't mean something like advertising banners or something like this. But for example, if a user search in the package database on the Debian site he will by default search also in the non-free archive and by the right keyword the result will show him non-free software, i think this is also some kind of promoting. > Well, you find their call for help on the debian user support lists, > which even if you don't respond to them, take a certain amount of time > only to read them, and distinguish them from other legitimate help > requests. but i think you have this questions independent from the question whether Debian drops non-free or not. I think the Debian user list is, like the name says, in the first place a user list. Users sometimes use non-free software or non-free drivers, and than users asks users for help on a users list. This has nothing to do with the question whether or not Debian will distribute non-free. Today there are such questions and they will be there in the feature independent from the non-free decision. >> But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I >> think > > And, nothing is stopping the technical comite to take this decision and > remove the package. Even you could, i think, appeal to the techincal > comitee if the maintainer is not active enough on a bug report asking > for a reasoned removal of the package. But i doubt you care enough for > that, but would be happy to be proved wrong. if a normal user can ask for removing some programs from non-free and this will be considered from independent people (not only the maintainer) than i will do this. So far i have not known such a place. >> But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian. > > Naturally it would, at least it would be so in the imaginations of our > users. not more than now. If its is no more part of Debian than main package will not suggest or recommend these packages and you will not find them in the package database on the Debian homepage. It would be there like apt-get.org or backports.org or rpm sources for other Distributions but it would nothing have to do directly with Debian. Cheers! Markus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:30:26 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Yeah, and which is why those systems are lacking the stability of debian > boxes. As i can see their systems were not as stable as Debian woody because the system structure or the distributors decision to insert new and untested version of some programs or even of the kernel. But there system doesn't become more or less stable through spim. >> and installed it. I would have no problem to do the same thing. I would >> never demand from Debian to provide non-free Software to me. I think Debian >> has it's own goals an philosophy and doesn't have to make some single >> person like me happy by providing some non-free software. >But what if we could with a real minor cost ? Probably a lesser cost than >what you needed. That's no argument for me. I have learned that at the end the only person who is responsible for me and my needs are I'm by my self. I see Debians job for distributing a 100% Free Operating System, not in offering me some special non-free software which i need in some special case. If i need this it's my job to find and install them, not Debians job. > This is not true currently though. But most people chose to ignore the > issue of the bios, and the proprietary firmware in most of the hardware. But that many people ignore the issue of bios is not an argument that other people should ignore the issue of non-free in Debian. >> special things which will not work with free software, but the most >> things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should >> keep this role or expand it if possible. > And, is this not what we are doing ? Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i mentioned in my first mail. >> power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it, >> than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers, >> therefore you don't need Debian. > > And once you have messed up your system, to whom you will come for help? I would ask myself, the vendor, or Debian and GNU/Linux user who also use this proprietary driver. But i wouldn't ask some DD's, at least not as there job as DD, because i would know that they are working for and with Free Software and not for and with proprietary software or drivers. > non-free is shuned by all debian developers, and it is a shame for a > given DD to maintain a package there. But maybe the developer of this software or the vendor of the hardware have no problem with non-free and so they complete satisfy that they "in Debian" and every Debian user can use there software/drivers. And they would work harder if they aren't in Debian at all, and the only way would be to free the software/driver. I think thats a little bit the same like the kernel issue which you have mentioned before. Torvalds has allowed non-free driver modules in the kernel, so the hardware vendors know that GNU/Linux user can run there hardware and so they have an opportunity to sell there hardware to GNU/Linux user. They don't really worry about Free Software. If there was no opportunity like this i think this non-free driver culture wouldn't have developed, at least not in these dimension. And vendors like ATI and Matrox would today provide there specs like a few years before. > time, and the willingness of the DD that the package is in non-free, and > upstream well knows that. It takes only a single mail from the > maintainer (or from the QA folk) to remove the package from non-free. But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I think Debian should decide if a non-free package are on the Debian server or not. And if there is a free alternative than the non-free software have to deleted immediately from the Debian server whether or not the maintainer still wants this package. E.g. netscape was a long time in non-free even there was enough free alternatives, or look at mpg123 i think this program also shouldn't be on the Debian server because there are enough free alternatives mpg321, mp3blaster,... > An external non-free.org repository would have full legitimity, and > would not be under our control. But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian. Debian can not and shouldn't control what people doing outside from Debian, Debian can only control what people does inside Debian. Cheers! Markus
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 09:30:26 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Yeah, and which is why those systems are lacking the stability of debian > boxes. As i can see their systems were not as stable as Debian woody because the system structure or the distributors decision to insert new and untested version of some programs or even of the kernel. But there system doesn't become more or less stable through spim. >> and installed it. I would have no problem to do the same thing. I would >> never demand from Debian to provide non-free Software to me. I think Debian >> has it's own goals an philosophy and doesn't have to make some single >> person like me happy by providing some non-free software. >But what if we could with a real minor cost ? Probably a lesser cost than >what you needed. That's no argument for me. I have learned that at the end the only person who is responsible for me and my needs are I'm by my self. I see Debians job for distributing a 100% Free Operating System, not in offering me some special non-free software which i need in some special case. If i need this it's my job to find and install them, not Debians job. > This is not true currently though. But most people chose to ignore the > issue of the bios, and the proprietary firmware in most of the hardware. But that many people ignore the issue of bios is not an argument that other people should ignore the issue of non-free in Debian. >> special things which will not work with free software, but the most >> things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should >> keep this role or expand it if possible. > And, is this not what we are doing ? Not completely. Because Debian also recommend and suggest non-free Software in there main System and promoting it on there homepage, as i mentioned in my first mail. >> power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it, >> than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers, >> therefore you don't need Debian. > > And once you have messed up your system, to whom you will come for help? I would ask myself, the vendor, or Debian and GNU/Linux user who also use this proprietary driver. But i wouldn't ask some DD's, at least not as there job as DD, because i would know that they are working for and with Free Software and not for and with proprietary software or drivers. > non-free is shuned by all debian developers, and it is a shame for a > given DD to maintain a package there. But maybe the developer of this software or the vendor of the hardware have no problem with non-free and so they complete satisfy that they "in Debian" and every Debian user can use there software/drivers. And they would work harder if they aren't in Debian at all, and the only way would be to free the software/driver. I think thats a little bit the same like the kernel issue which you have mentioned before. Torvalds has allowed non-free driver modules in the kernel, so the hardware vendors know that GNU/Linux user can run there hardware and so they have an opportunity to sell there hardware to GNU/Linux user. They don't really worry about Free Software. If there was no opportunity like this i think this non-free driver culture wouldn't have developed, at least not in these dimension. And vendors like ATI and Matrox would today provide there specs like a few years before. > time, and the willingness of the DD that the package is in non-free, and > upstream well knows that. It takes only a single mail from the > maintainer (or from the QA folk) to remove the package from non-free. But i think it shouldn't be just the decision of the maintainer. I think Debian should decide if a non-free package are on the Debian server or not. And if there is a free alternative than the non-free software have to deleted immediately from the Debian server whether or not the maintainer still wants this package. E.g. netscape was a long time in non-free even there was enough free alternatives, or look at mpg123 i think this program also shouldn't be on the Debian server because there are enough free alternatives mpg321, mp3blaster,... > An external non-free.org repository would have full legitimity, and > would not be under our control. But it wouldn't legitimated and labeled by Debian. Debian can not and shouldn't control what people doing outside from Debian, Debian can only control what people does inside Debian. Cheers! Markus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:40:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > We should all boycott nvidia, as they are the epythom of evilness in > what consists of non-freeness of drivers. yes, i would never buy a nvidia card. >> That's a point who i have never understand in this discussion. Every one >> can install whatever he want on his system, even if Debian drops non-free >> the driver and all other programs will still be out there and you are free > > It would be a regression over the current state of things. or an progression, it depends whether your first goal is to have more software or to have free software. >> to install it on your system. The only question in my view is, if Debian >> will support this Software by using there resources, create Debian >> packages which are hosted on the Debian Server and promote this software >> with the Debian label? Or is the support enough if Debian gives everyone >> the informations to built, create and insert every software they want >> to there Debian System? > > Ah, let's move to running Gentoo, should we ? i don't know what you mean. What have gentoo to do with it? I think Gentoo is more non-free than Debian. > Ok, so no 3D graphics for you, and you actually gave money to the > greatest enemy of free hardware drivers that there is. You are aware > that nvidia doesn't give out specs to anybody, that they insist on doing > all the driver work themselves in house, and expect people to pay them > to do so. I would never buy a nvidia graphic-card, this card was part of the computer which i bought 4 years ago. And because i have no special requirement for a graphic-card i have never bought a new one. > A, yes ? And are you aware that no graphic card newer than the radeon > 9200 will have free drivers ? yes, but at the moment i think that would be more than enough graphic-power for my use. If this is sometimes not enough for my needs than i have to think about it. But also if i will use some days a graphic-card with non-free drivers i would never demand from Debian to provide these drivers because i think thats not the job of Debian. > So, and it was usefull to you ? Do you not think that other people may > need stuff from non-free today ? Yes, but as i said i think it's not the job from Debian to provide this software. This software is out there and everybody who need it can use it. But i think Debian don't have to provide everything which is theoretical possible. As i needed spim, there was a lot of students which uses Windows, SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat,... everyone has downloaded it from the developers homepage and installed it. I would have no problem to do the same thing. I would never demand from Debian to provide non-free Software to me. I think Debian has it's own goals an philosophy and doesn't have to make some single person like me happy by providing some non-free software. Debian is the only Distribution which is near to an 100% free Operating System. If the free software community has one System to show the people "look at us, you can use a computer with entirely free software. Maybe there are some special things which will not work with free software, but the most things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should keep this role or expand it if possible. I think today you can use your computer only with free software, even if you have extreme proprietary hardware like nvidia. You maybe can't use 3D power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it, than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers, therefore you don't need Debian. > Yeah, but i believe that the discussion with the author carries more > strength if said package is in the non-free area of our infrastructure. > Also, you completely forget about the BTS, and the quality assurance > this brings with it, which are also an argument in this discussion. But the the BTS and the quality assurance are also available for non-free. So non-free provides already a great platform for non-free software and drivers that developers and vendors maybe don't have many incentive to go from non-free to main. If there software wouldn't have this great infrastructure it would be more interesting for them to become a Debian package to profit from the BTS and the whole infrastructure. Cheers, Markus
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 18:40:13 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > We should all boycott nvidia, as they are the epythom of evilness in > what consists of non-freeness of drivers. yes, i would never buy a nvidia card. >> That's a point who i have never understand in this discussion. Every one >> can install whatever he want on his system, even if Debian drops non-free >> the driver and all other programs will still be out there and you are free > > It would be a regression over the current state of things. or an progression, it depends whether your first goal is to have more software or to have free software. >> to install it on your system. The only question in my view is, if Debian >> will support this Software by using there resources, create Debian >> packages which are hosted on the Debian Server and promote this software >> with the Debian label? Or is the support enough if Debian gives everyone >> the informations to built, create and insert every software they want >> to there Debian System? > > Ah, let's move to running Gentoo, should we ? i don't know what you mean. What have gentoo to do with it? I think Gentoo is more non-free than Debian. > Ok, so no 3D graphics for you, and you actually gave money to the > greatest enemy of free hardware drivers that there is. You are aware > that nvidia doesn't give out specs to anybody, that they insist on doing > all the driver work themselves in house, and expect people to pay them > to do so. I would never buy a nvidia graphic-card, this card was part of the computer which i bought 4 years ago. And because i have no special requirement for a graphic-card i have never bought a new one. > A, yes ? And are you aware that no graphic card newer than the radeon > 9200 will have free drivers ? yes, but at the moment i think that would be more than enough graphic-power for my use. If this is sometimes not enough for my needs than i have to think about it. But also if i will use some days a graphic-card with non-free drivers i would never demand from Debian to provide these drivers because i think thats not the job of Debian. > So, and it was usefull to you ? Do you not think that other people may > need stuff from non-free today ? Yes, but as i said i think it's not the job from Debian to provide this software. This software is out there and everybody who need it can use it. But i think Debian don't have to provide everything which is theoretical possible. As i needed spim, there was a lot of students which uses Windows, SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat,... everyone has downloaded it from the developers homepage and installed it. I would have no problem to do the same thing. I would never demand from Debian to provide non-free Software to me. I think Debian has it's own goals an philosophy and doesn't have to make some single person like me happy by providing some non-free software. Debian is the only Distribution which is near to an 100% free Operating System. If the free software community has one System to show the people "look at us, you can use a computer with entirely free software. Maybe there are some special things which will not work with free software, but the most things works really god" than it's Debian and i think Debian should keep this role or expand it if possible. I think today you can use your computer only with free software, even if you have extreme proprietary hardware like nvidia. You maybe can't use 3D power but a lot of people doesn't really need it. And if you need it, than you can go to the vendors homepage and take some drivers, therefore you don't need Debian. > Yeah, but i believe that the discussion with the author carries more > strength if said package is in the non-free area of our infrastructure. > Also, you completely forget about the BTS, and the quality assurance > this brings with it, which are also an argument in this discussion. But the the BTS and the quality assurance are also available for non-free. So non-free provides already a great platform for non-free software and drivers that developers and vendors maybe don't have many incentive to go from non-free to main. If there software wouldn't have this great infrastructure it would be more interesting for them to become a Debian package to profit from the BTS and the whole infrastructure. Cheers, Markus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote: >> One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs >> think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there >> non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe >> true or not. But i think if you define the goal of Debian to create an >> 100% free operating system thats not a problem for Debian. > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that > provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian > work, will you step in and pay me (and others who use the same modem) a > new adsl modem that is supported by non-free software. Let me answere in two steps: 1. If you maintain the non-free ADSL driver, that means that there are some drivers and you create a Debian package for it. If there is no Debian package you, and all other people who use that modem, could still use the drivers and the modem. For example i don't really need a Debian package for the nvidia drivers, i can also download it from nvidia.com and install it like people does when they use other Distributions. That's a point who i have never understand in this discussion. Every one can install whatever he want on his system, even if Debian drops non-free the driver and all other programs will still be out there and you are free to install it on your system. The only question in my view is, if Debian will support this Software by using there resources, create Debian packages which are hosted on the Debian Server and promote this software with the Debian label? Or is the support enough if Debian gives everyone the informations to built, create and insert every software they want to there Debian System? 2. Before i would pay you many years to package the non-free driver i would give you one time 30EUR that you can buy a modem which were supported by free drivers. If i buy new hardware I'm looking that this hardware is supported by free software, if you don't look at these you can't make other people responsible for it. > And do you volunteer to step up, and do the administration of the new > non-free.org infrastructure, which many talk about as it already > existed, but nobody has come forward and implemented without taking > ressources away from the debian project. As i understand Free Software, things were created if someone are in need of it. So if you or other people need a place like non-free.org it's your job to create something. Why should people create for you (or other non-free maintainer) something what they self don't need? If some non-free maintainer or some dedicated Debian user decide that they want something like non-free.org than they will create it. If they think that's not necessary because they don't need non-free software or they can become there non-free programs or drivers also from somewhere else (e.g. direct from the hardware vendor) than they will not create some place. If a non-free.org takes the DD's some resources away than thats pity, but Debian can not tell people how many time they should spend for Debian and can't forbid them to invest some time in other activities outside from Debian. And if some DD's want to spend some time on non-free.org or something else and cut there time for Debian than thats their decision. > Also, i would be interested to know from you what your hardware > configuration is, and tell me about the non-free software you actually > use, or used. I have normal hardware, ADSL modem which connects over Ethernet with the computer (= no special drivers needed), HP printer, AMD processor, nvidia graphic-cart. For the graphic-card i use the XFree drivers because i have no need for 3D support. If i would need 3D support i would by a new graphic-cart which works with free drivers (e.g. ati radeon). At the moment i have only software from Debian main installed, about 1 years before i had spim installed from non-free because i needed it for my study. But if there were no non-free or no Debian package for it i would have no problem, i would have downloaded it simply from their homepage. That's also what i said about this topic. Non-free software exists independent from Debians non-free. No one needs Debian to use this software, whether non-free exists or not everyone can use and install everything he wants on his Debian System. > And also, i think you, as the other drop non-free proponent, forget > completely about the work that accompanies a serious non-free packager, > and which includes advocating and lobbying upstream to change to a free > licence, which in my case has proven to be successfull in 50% of the > non-free packages i have maintained. I have great respect from people who does this hard advocating and lobbying work. But d
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 14:30:41 +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 04:05:41PM +0100, Markus wrote: >> One last point: I have read that DD which also packages non-free programs >> think that if Debian drops non-free they would need more time for there >> non-free package and for the (maybe) new infrastructure. This is maybe >> true or not. But i think if you define the goal of Debian to create an >> 100% free operating system thats not a problem for Debian. > If i am stopped from maintaining the driver for the ADSL modem that > provides me access to the internet, and thus enables me to do my debian > work, will you step in and pay me (and others who use the same modem) a > new adsl modem that is supported by non-free software. Let me answere in two steps: 1. If you maintain the non-free ADSL driver, that means that there are some drivers and you create a Debian package for it. If there is no Debian package you, and all other people who use that modem, could still use the drivers and the modem. For example i don't really need a Debian package for the nvidia drivers, i can also download it from nvidia.com and install it like people does when they use other Distributions. That's a point who i have never understand in this discussion. Every one can install whatever he want on his system, even if Debian drops non-free the driver and all other programs will still be out there and you are free to install it on your system. The only question in my view is, if Debian will support this Software by using there resources, create Debian packages which are hosted on the Debian Server and promote this software with the Debian label? Or is the support enough if Debian gives everyone the informations to built, create and insert every software they want to there Debian System? 2. Before i would pay you many years to package the non-free driver i would give you one time 30EUR that you can buy a modem which were supported by free drivers. If i buy new hardware I'm looking that this hardware is supported by free software, if you don't look at these you can't make other people responsible for it. > And do you volunteer to step up, and do the administration of the new > non-free.org infrastructure, which many talk about as it already > existed, but nobody has come forward and implemented without taking > ressources away from the debian project. As i understand Free Software, things were created if someone are in need of it. So if you or other people need a place like non-free.org it's your job to create something. Why should people create for you (or other non-free maintainer) something what they self don't need? If some non-free maintainer or some dedicated Debian user decide that they want something like non-free.org than they will create it. If they think that's not necessary because they don't need non-free software or they can become there non-free programs or drivers also from somewhere else (e.g. direct from the hardware vendor) than they will not create some place. If a non-free.org takes the DD's some resources away than thats pity, but Debian can not tell people how many time they should spend for Debian and can't forbid them to invest some time in other activities outside from Debian. And if some DD's want to spend some time on non-free.org or something else and cut there time for Debian than thats their decision. > Also, i would be interested to know from you what your hardware > configuration is, and tell me about the non-free software you actually > use, or used. I have normal hardware, ADSL modem which connects over Ethernet with the computer (= no special drivers needed), HP printer, AMD processor, nvidia graphic-cart. For the graphic-card i use the XFree drivers because i have no need for 3D support. If i would need 3D support i would by a new graphic-cart which works with free drivers (e.g. ati radeon). At the moment i have only software from Debian main installed, about 1 years before i had spim installed from non-free because i needed it for my study. But if there were no non-free or no Debian package for it i would have no problem, i would have downloaded it simply from their homepage. That's also what i said about this topic. Non-free software exists independent from Debians non-free. No one needs Debian to use this software, whether non-free exists or not everyone can use and install everything he wants on his Debian System. > And also, i think you, as the other drop non-free proponent, forget > completely about the work that accompanies a serious non-free packager, > and which includes advocating and lobbying upstream to change to a free > licence, which in my case has proven to be successfull in 50% of the > non-free packages i have maintained. I have great respect from people who does this hard advocating and lobbying work. But d
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: > Markus wrote: >> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS >> source.list looks. The main answer will be: >> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free > > Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Then i would say it is definitely a step forward. But i doesn't mean the default source.list in my message above. I mean something like "I have accidentally deleted my source.list, can you tell me how a normal Debian GNU/Linux source list looks?" This kind of question were answered to 99% in Debian or GNU/Linux user forums with source.list entries which contain contrib and non-free just because for the most users non-free is part of the Debian OS, as i have explained in my above message more detailed.
Re: drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 18:20:17 +0100, Joey Hess wrote: > Markus wrote: >> Ask in normal Debian or GNU/Linux forums how does a normal Debian OS >> source.list looks. The main answer will be: >> deb ftp:... main contrib non-free > > Non-free removal or no, this is not true as of sarge. do you mean the default source.list after installation? Does the sarge installer also not ask the user if he want to include non-free? Then i would say it is definitely a step forward. But i doesn't mean the default source.list in my message above. I mean something like "I have accidentally deleted my source.list, can you tell me how a normal Debian GNU/Linux source list looks?" This kind of question were answered to 99% in Debian or GNU/Linux user forums with source.list entries which contain contrib and non-free just because for the most users non-free is part of the Debian OS, as i have explained in my above message more detailed. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
top you doing this. But this will nothing have to do with your job as DD. There will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which aren't DD's and there will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which are DD's. But that would be no subject for Debian, Debian would provides a free operating system. And if you build in your spare-time non-free packages, or drive bicycle or go swimming or... that has nothing to do with the Debian Project or your job as DD. At the end i would say: I as Debian user would be glade if Debian drops non-free and would be the first real 100% free operating system. But also if not, just think about my first paragraph (why people think that non-free is part of Debian) and try to draw an better line between non-free and main. Just some thought's from a normal Debian user about this discussion. Maybe you will find it useful or interesting. Cheers! Markus
drop or keep non-free - from users viewpoint
top you doing this. But this will nothing have to do with your job as DD. There will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which aren't DD's and there will be people which create non-free packages in there spare-time which are DD's. But that would be no subject for Debian, Debian would provides a free operating system. And if you build in your spare-time non-free packages, or drive bicycle or go swimming or... that has nothing to do with the Debian Project or your job as DD. At the end i would say: I as Debian user would be glade if Debian drops non-free and would be the first real 100% free operating system. But also if not, just think about my first paragraph (why people think that non-free is part of Debian) and try to draw an better line between non-free and main. Just some thought's from a normal Debian user about this discussion. Maybe you will find it useful or interesting. Cheers! Markus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Anthony, I wrote (25 May 2003): >37 ACB >32 BAC >28 CBA >03 CAB >A:B=40:60 >A:C=69:31 >B:C=32:68 >Default option: A. >Quorum: 30. >B meets quorum. >C meets quorum. >Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose A. You wrote (25 May 2003): > C fails to reach its majority requirement and is dropped. > B and A are the only remaining options, and B defeats A. > B wins. That's strange! The majority requirement makes the default option lose. Doesn't that contradict the intention of the majority requirement? Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > On the other hand, if you could show that the May 15 mechanism > violates monotonicity, then I'd be opposed to it. Situation 1: 40 ACB 32 BAC 28 CBA A:B=40:60 A:C=72:28 B:C=32:68 Default option: A. Quorum: 30. B meets quorum. C fails to meet quorum. Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose B. Situation 2: 3 ACB voters change their minds to CAB. 37 ACB 32 BAC 28 CBA 03 CAB A:B=40:60 A:C=69:31 B:C=32:68 Default option: A. Quorum: 30. B meets quorum. C meets quorum. Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose A. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Raul, here is a simpler example. 8 ABC 7 BCA 5 CAB A:B=13:07 A:C=08:12 B:C=15:05 Suppose, that the quorum is 10 and the default option is A. Then the winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal is C. If there was a second election and the voters don't change their minds, then the winner (according to Manoj's May 15 proposal) of this second election would be B. If there was a third election and again the voters don't change their minds, then the winner (according to Manoj's May 15 proposal) of this third election would be A. In short: The winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal can be cyclic even when the voters don't change their minds. This is caused by the fact that _direct defeats_ can be cyclic. On the other side, _beat path defeats_ cannot be cyclic. Therefore, the winner according to my proposal cannot be cyclic when the voters don't change their minds. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Raul, I wrote (25 May 2003): > There is only one election. You wrote (25 May 2003): > This seems to contradict what you said in your 5/24 message: > >Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next >elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's >May 15 proposal would choose candidate D. There is only one election. In this election, 38 voters prefer E to C, 42 voters prefer D to E and 24 voters prefer D to C. Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. My proposal would choose candidate D. But --and this is what I have to criticize-- _if there was a second election_ then (simply because of the fact that in the first election the default option has been changed from candidate C to candidate E) in this second election the winner according to Manoj's May 15 proposal would be changed from candidate E to candidate D _without having any voter to change his mind_. On the other side, the winner according to my proposal would still be candidate D. In my opinion, this is a disadvantage of Manoj's May 15 proposal because this means that Manoj's May 15 proposal leads to unnecessarily frequent changes of the status quo. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > Quorum of 10, ballot A, default (D), votes: > > 31 A D > 28 D A > > Here, A does not defeat D by 10, but still satisfies > the quorum requirement. As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, A defeats D by 31 in your example. ** I wrote (25 May 2003): > As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, > an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default > option with the required quorum. I suggest that it should be > sufficient that this option _transitively_ defeats the default > option with the required quorum. You wrote (25 May 2003): > As stated, this changes the quorum requirement from a concept > of "minimum level of approval required to conduct business" to > a concept of "required margin of victory required against the > default option". > > In earlier discussions, it was felt that the "margin of victory" > concept was too heavily biased in the direction of the status quo. > > That said, I'll note that your explanation, further down, actually > indicates you had a different idea in mind. What makes you believe that I prefer margins? Actually, I don't even mentioned the "margins vs. positive votes" issue in my last mails. ** I wrote (25 May 2003): > Situation 1: > >04 ABCDEF >02 ABFDEC >04 AEBFCD >02 AEFBCD >02 BFACDE >02 CDBEFA >04 CDBFEA >12 DECABF >08 ECDBFA >10 FABCDE >06 FABDEC >04 FEDBCA > >A:B=40:20 >A:C=30:30 >A:D=30:30 >A:E=30:30 >A:F=24:36 >B:C=34:26 >B:D=30:30 >B:E=30:30 >B:F=38:22 >C:D=36:24 >C:E=22:38 >C:F=30:30 >D:E=42:18 >D:F=30:30 >E:F=32:28 > >The beat paths have the following strengths: > >A:B=40:36 >A:C=34:32 >A:D=34:32 >A:E=34:32 >A:F=38:36 >B:C=34:32 >B:D=34:32 >B:E=34:32 >B:F=38:36 >C:D=36:38 >C:E=36:38 >C:F=32:34 >D:E=42:36 >D:F=32:34 >E:F=32:34 > >Therefore, the ranking according to the beat path >method is ABFDEC. > >Suppose that, for example, the default option is C >and the quorum is 38. Then the winner is candidate D. I wrote (25 May 2003): > Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next > elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's > May 15 proposal would choose candidate D. My proposal would > choose candidate D immediately. In my opinion, the advantage > of my proposal is that it doesn't lead to unnecessarily > frequent changes of the status quo. You wrote (25 May 2003): > It's true that in your example, E was ranked second last (with C, > the default, ranked last). But, given that not many voters elected to > participate, and given that those who did vote couldn't muster enough > agreement that any of the other options were better than doing nothing, > I think this is a worthwhile outcome. > > More fundamentally, however: you've assumed that while only 24 people > thought D was a good idea in the first election, that 42 would think it's > a good idea in the second election. In other words, your starting point > is thinking of the default option as an outcome, rather than a refusal > to choose an option. At the same time, you've assumed that the large > majority of voters who didn't participate in the first election would > continue to ignore the second. > > The way I see it, either these options just aren't all that important > (in which case there's no reason for 18 people to suddenly decide to > change their minds about whether or not D is a good idea), or they are > important (in which case there should be many more people participating > in that second election). There is only one election. In this election, 38 voters prefer E to C, 42 voters prefer D to E and 24 voters prefer D to C. When the default option is changed from C to E, then the number of voters who prefer D to the default option is raised from 24 to 42 without having any voter to change his mind. You wrote (25 May 2003): > In neither circumstance does the extra "decisiveness" gained by your > approach yield a positive result: > > For the case that these options aren't that important, it's harder to > explain to people what the default option means. [It no longer means > postponing agreeing on some decisions, except for cases where people > can come to some sort of agreement on the overall ranking of options.] > > For the case where these options are important, we're achieving a decision > before people have realized that they care. My proposal isn't "extra decisive." When Manoj's May 15 proposal disqualifies all options (other than the default option) because of the quorum requirement then so does my proposal. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Nathanael, Raul Miller wrote (25 May 2003): > Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal > implements logically equivalent to your suggestion? I wrote (25 May 2003): > As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, > an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default > option with the required quorum. I suggest that it should be > sufficient that this option _transitively_ defeats the default > option with the required quorum. You wrote (25 May 2003): > Let me apply this to my evil testcase. :-) > > 19x A=DB > 19x ABD > 1x BA=D > > A defeats B by 38 to 1 > A defeats D by 19 to 0 > B defeats D by 20 to 19. > > On the A->B->D defeat path, A defeats D with 20 positive > votes at the weakest link, which makes quorum, and A wins. > > Yep, this fixes the perverse result I was talking about in > another thread (where Manoj's proposal causes B to win). > Am I correct, Markus? Yes. You are absolutely correct. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Dear Raul, you wrote (25 May 2003): > Markus Schulze wrote (25 May 2003): > > I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of > > the candidates according to the beat path method and then, > > of those candidates whose beat path to the default option > > meets the quorum, that candidate should be elected who is > > ranked highest in the ranking of the beat path method. > > That's the maximum that you can get without undermining > > the intention of super-majority requirements. > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but: what Manoj's May 15 proposal > implements logically equivalent to your suggestion? As far as I have understood Manoj's May 15 proposal correctly, an option is dropped unless it _directly_ defeats the default option with the required quorum. I suggest that it should be sufficient that this option _transitively_ defeats the default option with the required quorum. In Situation 1 in my last mail, the quorum is 38. According to Manoj's May 15 proposal, candidate D is disqualified since only 24 voters strictly prefer candidate D to candidate C. According to my proposal, candidate D is not disqualified since 38 voters strictly prefer candidate E to candidate C and 42 voters strictly prefer candidate D to candidate E. Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate E. In the next elections, when candidate E is the default option, Manoj's May 15 proposal would choose candidate D. My proposal would choose candidate D immediately. In my opinion, the advantage of my proposal is that it doesn't lead to unnecessarily frequent changes of the status quo. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hallo, Situation 1: 04 ABCDEF 02 ABFDEC 04 AEBFCD 02 AEFBCD 02 BFACDE 02 CDBEFA 04 CDBFEA 12 DECABF 08 ECDBFA 10 FABCDE 06 FABDEC 04 FEDBCA A:B=40:20 A:C=30:30 A:D=30:30 A:E=30:30 A:F=24:36 B:C=34:26 B:D=30:30 B:E=30:30 B:F=38:22 C:D=36:24 C:E=22:38 C:F=30:30 D:E=42:18 D:F=30:30 E:F=32:28 The winner is candidate A. Situation 2: 3 AEFCBD voters are added. A:B=43:20 A:C=33:30 A:D=33:30 A:E=33:30 A:F=27:36 B:C=34:29 B:D=33:30 B:E=30:33 B:F=38:25 C:D=39:24 C:E=22:41 C:F=30:33 D:E=42:21 D:F=30:33 E:F=35:28 Now, the winner is candidate D. Thus the 3 AEFCBD voters change the winner from candidate A to candidate D. ** John wrote (23 May 2003): > instead, the per-option quorum will throw out the IDW in > favour of a less-favoured option due to quorum requirements. > > R=15 > 10 ABD > 5 BDA I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of the candidates according to the beat path method and then, of those candidates whose beat path to the default option meets the quorum, that candidate should be elected who is ranked highest in the ranking of the beat path method. That's the maximum that you can get without undermining the intention of super-majority requirements. In Situation 1, for example, the beat paths have the following strengths: A:B=40:36 A:C=34:32 A:D=34:32 A:E=34:32 A:F=38:36 B:C=34:32 B:D=34:32 B:E=34:32 B:F=38:36 C:D=36:38 C:E=36:38 C:F=32:34 D:E=42:36 D:F=32:34 E:F=32:34 Therefore, the ranking according to the beat path method is ABFDEC. Suppose that, for example, the default option is C and the quorum is 38. Then the winner is candidate D. Markus Schulze (not Martin Schulze)
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hallo, John wrote (23 May 2003): > instead, the per-option quorum will throw out the IDW in > favour of a less-favoured option due to quorum requirements. > > R=15 > 10 ABD > 5 BDA I suggest that one should at first calculate the ranking of the candidates according to the beat path method and then, of those candidates whose beat path to the default option meets the quorum, that candidate should be elected who is ranked highest in the ranking of the beat path method. That's the maximum that you can get without undermining the intention of super-majority requirements. Example: A:B=206:94 A:C=160:140 A:D=161:139 A:E=162:138 A:F=96:204 B:C=202:98 B:D=163:137 B:E=164:136 B:F=205:95 C:D=203:97 C:E=93:207 C:F=165:135 D:E=228:72 D:F=166:134 E:F=201:99 Via beat paths, the pairwise defeats are: A:B=206:204 A:C=202:201 A:D=202:201 A:E=202:201 A:F=205:204 B:C=202:201 B:D=202:201 B:E=202:201 B:F=205:204 C:D=203:207 C:E=203:207 C:F=201:202 D:E=228:203 D:F=201:202 E:F=201:202 Therefore, the ranking according to the beat path method is ABFDEC. Suppose that, for example, the default option is C and the quorum is 207. Then the winner is candidate D. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hallo, here is an extreme violation of the participation criterion. Situation 1: A:B=206:94 A:C=160:140 A:D=161:139 A:E=162:138 A:F=96:204 B:C=202:98 B:D=163:137 B:E=164:136 B:F=205:95 C:D=203:97 C:E=93:207 C:F=165:135 D:E=228:72 D:F=166:134 E:F=201:99 Candidate A is the unique beat path winner. Situation 2: 10 AEFCBD voters are added. A:B=216:94 A:C=170:140 A:D=171:139 A:E=172:138 A:F=106:204 B:C=202:108 B:D=173:137 B:E=164:146 B:F=205:105 C:D=213:97 C:E=93:217 C:F=165:145 D:E=228:82 D:F=166:144 E:F=211:99 Candidate D is the unique beat path winner. This example demonstrates that the extreme violation of the participation criterion has nothing to do with quorum requirements. Markus Schulze
Re: Constitutional amendment: Condorcet/Clone Proof SSD vote tallying
Hallo, it is necessary to distinguish between the participation criterion and the monotonicity criterion. The participation criterion says that a set of additional voters who strictly prefer candidate A to candidate B must not change the winner from candidate A to candidate B. The Condorcet criterion and the participation criterion are incompatible (Herve Moulin, "Condorcet's Principle Implies the No Show Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 45, pp. 53-64, 1988). Therefore, this criterion is _of no concern_ when we want to discuss which Condorcet method should be adopted. The monotonicity criterion says that (1) when some voters rank a given candidate A higher without changing the orders in which they prefer the other candidates then candidate A must not be changed from a winner to a loser and (2) when some voters rank a given candidate A lower without changing the orders in which they prefer the other candidates then candidate A must not be changed from a loser to a winner. It is _not_ true that the monotonicity criterion implies the participation criterion. It is also _not_ true that the monotonicity criterion implies that when candidate A is the original winner then adding voters who strictly prefer candidate A to every other candidate must not change candidate A into a loser. Suppose that candidate A is the original winner. Suppose that an ABC voter is added. Then on the one side this voter is changed from a voter who ranks all three candidates equally to a voter who strictly prefers candidate A to every other candidate; therefore, one could expect that the monotonicity criterion implies that candidate A stays the winner. However, this voter is also changed from a voter who ranks candidate B and candidate C equally to a voter who strictly prefers candidate B to candidate C. Therefore, the requirement that the orders in which the other candidates are prefered aren't changed isn't met. However, it is true that the monotonicity criterion implies that when candidate A is the original winner then adding voters who strictly prefer candidate A to every other candidate and who rank all the other candidates equally must not change candidate A into a loser. Markus Schulze
Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft
Dear Clinton, you wrote (14 Feb 2003): > Participation Monotonicity. > > If > (i) There is an election X in which option A wins. > (ii) There is a vote V ranks option A over option B. > (iii) There is an election Y identical to election X except that it has > an additional vote V. > then > Option B must not win election Y. > > What Participation Monotonicity says is, that participation will never > cause a less prefered option to win than non-participation. That is, it > is never advantagous to not participate. The participation criterion and the Condorcet criterion are incompatible. (Proof: Herve Moulin, "Condorcet's Principle Implies the No Show Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 45, pp. 53-64, 1988.) As far as I know, only point methods (e.g. plurality, Approval Voting, Borda) meet the participation criterion. Markus Schulze
Re: Dec 15 voting amendment draft
Dear Clinton, you wrote (14 Feb 2003): > Participation Monotonicity. > > If > (i) There is an election X in which option A wins. > (ii) There is a vote V ranks option A over option B. > (iii) There is an election Y identical to election X except that it has > an additional vote V. > then > Option B must not win election Y. > > What Participation Monotonicity says is, that participation will never > cause a less prefered option to win than non-participation. That is, it > is never advantagous to not participate. The participation criterion and the Condorcet criterion are incompatible. (Proof: Herve Moulin, "Condorcet's Principle Implies the No Show Paradox," Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 45, pp. 53-64, 1988.) As far as I know, only point methods (e.g. plurality, Approval Voting, Borda) meet the participation criterion. Markus Schulze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another draft of A.6
Dear Raul, you wrote (14 Nov 2002): > Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no > other option D such that C transitively defeats D AND D does > not transitively defeat C. I guess you mean: > Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no > other option D such that D transitively defeats C AND C does > not transitively defeat D. Markus Schulze
Re: Another draft of A.6
Dear Raul, you wrote (14 Nov 2002): > Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no > other option D such that C transitively defeats D AND D does > not transitively defeat C. I guess you mean: > Definition: An option C is in the Schultz set if there is no > other option D such that D transitively defeats C AND C does > not transitively defeat D. Markus Schulze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [mike ossipoff ] Cloneproof SSD program, with balloting
Dear Manoj,
the Floyd algorithm to calculate the beat paths from
each candidate to each other candidate looks as follows
(Markus Schulze; 17 Oct 2002):
> for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
> for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
> for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
> {
> s : = min(P(j,i),P(i,k));
> if (s > P1(j,k)) then
> P1(j,k) : = s;
> }
However, Mike Ossipoff wrote (31 Oct 2002):
>for i in range(N)
> for j in range(N)
> for k in range(N)
> low=min(B[A(i,j)],B[A(j,k)]
> if low>B[A(i,k)]
>B[A(i,k)]=low
>change=1
The order of the indices is NOT irrelevant! Only when
one uses the same order that I use in my implementation,
it is guaranteed that one has to apply the triple loop
only once! The Floyd algorithm can be found in every
book on graph theory.
Markus Schulze
Re: [mike ossipoff ] Cloneproof SSD program, with balloting
Dear Manoj,
the Floyd algorithm to calculate the beat paths from
each candidate to each other candidate looks as follows
(Markus Schulze; 17 Oct 2002):
> for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
> for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
> for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
> {
> s : = min(P(j,i),P(i,k));
> if (s > P1(j,k)) then
> P1(j,k) : = s;
> }
However, Mike Ossipoff wrote (31 Oct 2002):
>for i in range(N)
> for j in range(N)
> for k in range(N)
> low=min(B[A(i,j)],B[A(j,k)]
> if low>B[A(i,k)]
>B[A(i,k)]=low
>change=1
The order of the indices is NOT irrelevant! Only when
one uses the same order that I use in my implementation,
it is guaranteed that one has to apply the triple loop
only once! The Floyd algorithm can be found in every
book on graph theory.
Markus Schulze
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number of voters who strictly prefer
candidate Ci to candidate Cj. A "beat path from candidate A to
candidate B" is an ordered set of candidates C1,...,Cn such that
candidate A is identical to candidate C1, such that candidate B
is identical to candidate Cn, and such that
d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) >= 0 for all i = 1,...,(n-1).
S1(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1))| i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
S2(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) | i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
P1(A,B) : = max { S1(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B}.
P2(A,B) : = max { S2(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B;
S1(C1,...,Cn) = P1(A,B)}.
When there is no beat path from candidate A to candidate B, then
P1(A,B) := -1. [P2(A,B) can be defined arbitrarily when there is
no beat path from candidate A to candidate B.]
When C1,...,Cn is a beat path, then S1(C1,...,Cn) is called the
"absolute strength of the beat path C1,...,Cn" and S2(C1,...,Cn)
is called the "margin of the beat path C1,...,Cn".
A "Schulze winner" is a candidate A such that
(P1(A,B) > P1(B,A)) or ((P1(A,B) = P1(B,A)) and (P2(A,B) >= P2(B,A)))
for every other candidate B.
The "Schulze set" is the set of all Schulze winners. [It can be proven
that there is always at least one Schulze winner.] If there is more
than one Schulze winner, the elector with the casting vote picks the
winner from the Schulze set.
***
Algorithmic Definition with the Floyd Algorithm:
Input: d(i,j) is the number of voters who strictly
prefer candidate i to candidate j
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
{
if (d(i,j) >= d(j,i)) then
P1(i,j) : = d(i,j);
else
P1(i,j) : = -1;
P2(i,j) : = d(i,j) - d(j,i);
}
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
if ((i <> k) and (j <> k)) then
{
s : = min(P1(j,i),P1(i,k));
t : = min(P2(j,i),P2(i,k));
if ((P1(j,k) < s) or
((P1(j,k) = s) and (P2(j,k) < t))) then
{
P1(j,k) : = s;
P2(j,k) : = t;
}
}
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
{
winner(i) : = true;
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
if ((P1(i,j) < P1(j,i)) or
((P1(i,j) = P1(j,i)) and (P2(i,j) < P2(j,i then
winner(i) : = false;
}
If there is more than one candidate with "winner(i) = true",
the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from all
the candidates with "winner(i) = true".
Markus Schulze
Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
Dear Manoj, dear Raul, dear Anthony,
I have added the original description (1997) of this method.
I hope that it will make the idea behind this method clearer.
***
Axiomatic Definition:
Suppose, that d(Ci,Cj) is the number of voters who strictly prefer
candidate Ci to candidate Cj. A "beat path from candidate A to
candidate B" is an ordered set of candidates C1,...,Cn such that
candidate A is identical to candidate C1, such that candidate B
is identical to candidate Cn, and such that
d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) >= 0 for all i = 1,...,(n-1).
S1(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1))| i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
S2(C1,...,Cn) : = min{ d(Ci,C(i+1)) - d(C(i+1),Ci) | i = 1,...,(n-1)}.
P1(A,B) : = max { S1(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B}.
P2(A,B) : = max { S2(C1,...,Cn) | C1,...,Cn is a beat path from A to B;
S1(C1,...,Cn) = P1(A,B)}.
When there is no beat path from candidate A to candidate B, then
P1(A,B) := -1. [P2(A,B) can be defined arbitrarily when there is
no beat path from candidate A to candidate B.]
When C1,...,Cn is a beat path, then S1(C1,...,Cn) is called the
"absolute strength of the beat path C1,...,Cn" and S2(C1,...,Cn)
is called the "margin of the beat path C1,...,Cn".
A "Schulze winner" is a candidate A such that
(P1(A,B) > P1(B,A)) or ((P1(A,B) = P1(B,A)) and (P2(A,B) >= P2(B,A)))
for every other candidate B.
The "Schulze set" is the set of all Schulze winners. [It can be proven
that there is always at least one Schulze winner.] If there is more
than one Schulze winner, the elector with the casting vote picks the
winner from the Schulze set.
***
Algorithmic Definition with the Floyd Algorithm:
Input: d(i,j) is the number of voters who strictly
prefer candidate i to candidate j
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
{
if (d(i,j) >= d(j,i)) then
P1(i,j) : = d(i,j);
else
P1(i,j) : = -1;
P2(i,j) : = d(i,j) - d(j,i);
}
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
for (k : = 1; k <= NumberOfCandidates; k++)
if ((i <> k) and (j <> k)) then
{
s : = min(P1(j,i),P1(i,k));
t : = min(P2(j,i),P2(i,k));
if ((P1(j,k) < s) or
((P1(j,k) = s) and (P2(j,k) < t))) then
{
P1(j,k) : = s;
P2(j,k) : = t;
}
}
for (i : = 1; i <= NumberOfCandidates; i++)
{
winner(i) : = true;
for (j : = 1; j <= NumberOfCandidates; j++)
if (i <> j) then
if ((P1(i,j) < P1(j,i)) or
((P1(i,j) = P1(j,i)) and (P2(i,j) < P2(j,i then
winner(i) : = false;
}
If there is more than one candidate with "winner(i) = true",
the elector with the casting vote picks the winner from all
the candidates with "winner(i) = true".
Markus Schulze
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)
Dear Buddha,
you wrote (14 Nov 2000):
> Could someone explain to me, in simple terms, how
> Condorcet-based voting schemes work in the face of
> a supermajority requirement?
>
> My understanding of Condorcet is that a ballot like
> Anthony Towns used as an example ("Remove non-free
> // We Love non-free! // Status-quo // Further
> discussion") would be, during the first analysis,
> treated as if it were 6 separate 1-on-1 votes, with
> each of the four choices paired against each of the
> remaining 3. If any of the four wins all three of
> the 1-on-1 votes it's part of, it wins the full
> balloting. Otherwise, we use a fall-back resolution
> method (of which there are several varieties in the
> literature to choose in advance from).
>
> This works fine if all the options required a plurality
> to win (note: I'm not even sure if "majority" or
> "plurality" are appropriate descriptions of the victory
> condition in Condorcet-based schemes). The system is
> balanced.
>
> But if one of the choices explicitly requires a 3:1
> supermajority to work, I don't see how it works quite
> so well.
To my opinion, one should at first check which proposals
are "available" (i.e. which proposals can be passed without
violating the supermajority requirement) and then one
should use a Condorcet method amongst these "available"
proposals.
Definition ("available"):
"X >> Y" means that a supermajority of the voters
strictly prefers proposal X to proposal Y.
"There is a qualified beat path from proposal A to
proposal B" means that
(1) A >> B or
(2) there is a set of candidates C[1],...,C[n] with
A >> C[1] >> ... >> C[n] >> B.
"Proposal D is available" means that there is a
qualified beat path from proposal D to the status quo.
Explanation:
If and only if there is a qualified beat path
D >> C[1] >> ... >> C[n] >> StatusQuo from proposal D
to the Status Quo, then proposal D can be passed
without violating the supermajority requirement.
Those voters who prefer proposal D to the Status Quo
will at first propose proposal C[n] to the Status Quo
so that proposal C[n] becomes the new Status Quo.
Then these voters will propose the proposals
C[n-1],...,C[1] successively so that C[n-1],...,C[1]
successively become the new Status Quo wihout
violating the supermajority requirement. Then
they will propose proposal D so that proposal D
becomes the new Status Quo wihout violating the
supermajority requirement. Therefore the above
mentioned definition of "available" proposals
makes sense.
The above mentioned definition of an "available" proposal
is very weak. Even proposals that are Pareto-inferior to
the Status Quo (**) can be "available" due to the above
mentioned definition. But this is not a problem at least
as long as the used Condorcet method guarantees that such
a proposal cannot be chosen.
Markus Schulze
(**) "Proposal Z is Pareto-inferior to the Status Quo"
means that every voter strictly prefers the Status Quo
to proposal Z.
Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)
Dear Buddha,
you wrote (14 Nov 2000):
> Could someone explain to me, in simple terms, how
> Condorcet-based voting schemes work in the face of
> a supermajority requirement?
>
> My understanding of Condorcet is that a ballot like
> Anthony Towns used as an example ("Remove non-free
> // We Love non-free! // Status-quo // Further
> discussion") would be, during the first analysis,
> treated as if it were 6 separate 1-on-1 votes, with
> each of the four choices paired against each of the
> remaining 3. If any of the four wins all three of
> the 1-on-1 votes it's part of, it wins the full
> balloting. Otherwise, we use a fall-back resolution
> method (of which there are several varieties in the
> literature to choose in advance from).
>
> This works fine if all the options required a plurality
> to win (note: I'm not even sure if "majority" or
> "plurality" are appropriate descriptions of the victory
> condition in Condorcet-based schemes). The system is
> balanced.
>
> But if one of the choices explicitly requires a 3:1
> supermajority to work, I don't see how it works quite
> so well.
To my opinion, one should at first check which proposals
are "available" (i.e. which proposals can be passed without
violating the supermajority requirement) and then one
should use a Condorcet method amongst these "available"
proposals.
Definition ("available"):
"X >> Y" means that a supermajority of the voters
strictly prefers proposal X to proposal Y.
"There is a qualified beat path from proposal A to
proposal B" means that
(1) A >> B or
(2) there is a set of candidates C[1],...,C[n] with
A >> C[1] >> ... >> C[n] >> B.
"Proposal D is available" means that there is a
qualified beat path from proposal D to the status quo.
Explanation:
If and only if there is a qualified beat path
D >> C[1] >> ... >> C[n] >> StatusQuo from proposal D
to the Status Quo, then proposal D can be passed
without violating the supermajority requirement.
Those voters who prefer proposal D to the Status Quo
will at first propose proposal C[n] to the Status Quo
so that proposal C[n] becomes the new Status Quo.
Then these voters will propose the proposals
C[n-1],...,C[1] successively so that C[n-1],...,C[1]
successively become the new Status Quo wihout
violating the supermajority requirement. Then
they will propose proposal D so that proposal D
becomes the new Status Quo wihout violating the
supermajority requirement. Therefore the above
mentioned definition of "available" proposals
makes sense.
The above mentioned definition of an "available" proposal
is very weak. Even proposals that are Pareto-inferior to
the Status Quo (**) can be "available" due to the above
mentioned definition. But this is not a problem at least
as long as the used Condorcet method guarantees that such
a proposal cannot be chosen.
Markus Schulze
(**) "Proposal Z is Pareto-inferior to the Status Quo"
means that every voter strictly prefers the Status Quo
to proposal Z.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
