Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 06:43:41PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Theodore Ts'o dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 04:13:20PM -0400]: > > Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have > > proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority", > > whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or > > FAQ's, external to Debian, that will warn users that the using the > > "free" installer will just cause them pain and frustration. > > Of course. OTOH, without the firmware, we cause that same pain and > frustration. You might be making a good point for Steve's original > proposal, of course. > > > So there may be some unintended consequences where new users may > > associate "100% free software" with "not functional" and "induces pain > > and frustration", such that it might end up *hurting* the cause of > > free software. > > The sad thing is... That it is true :-( In case it wasn't clear, yes, I was indeed trying to make an argument in favor for Steve's original proposal. I would consider making both installers equally easy to find a better outcome than the current status quo, where the version which is more likely to be useful for modern laptops is kept hidden and hard to find (under the sign, "beware of the leopard"). But I consider it an inferior choice to Steve's original proposal. - Ted
Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:32:23AM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > If a free installer is still produced and offered alongside the one > including non-free-firmware, would you feel more at ease? That sounds > like an easy compromise to make, and many people would probably > welcome it. > > Debian would recommend the one with non-free-firmware, for the > purposes of enabling users to install on current hardware, but both > would be available. Whether we recommend the one with non-free firmware or not (some have proposed that the "free" installer would have "visual priority", whatever that means), I suspect there will be various Linux newbie or FAQ's, external to Debian, that will warn users that the using the "free" installer will just cause them pain and frustration. So there may be some unintended consequences where new users may associate "100% free software" with "not functional" and "induces pain and frustration", such that it might end up *hurting* the cause of free software. - Ted
Re: Question to all candidates: how is Debian doing?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 01:57:59PM -0700, Felix Lechner wrote: > Hi Lucas, > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2022 at 12:52 PM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > Interesting. What would be the composition, roles, duties of that > > Strategy Council ? > > Like all committees and boards I envision, the Strategy Council should > have at least five but no more than twelve members. I personally like > nine, if you can get that many volunteers I'll note that you spent a lot of time about how the council would appoint a chair and vice-chair, create bylaws, meet monthly, etc. However you didn't really answer the question regarding what the authorities that the Strategy Council would have. You've said that the strategy council would expand on your answers that were given in the top of this thread --- but then what? If the Strategy Council were to decide that a strategy might be, say, "a mouse should put a bell on the cat", how would that strategy be carried out? Debian is a volunteer organization some have said, "do-ocracy". So I'm not sure what you, as the DPL, would do with the conclusions that might be made by such a Strategy Council? Cheers, - Ted
Question about voting when the key on the debian keyring is expired...
Apologies for this administrative question, but we have a couple of votes active at the moment, and so inquiring minds want to know. Due to an oversight, I managed to forget to update my GPG subkey's expiration date. I've since fixed it, and uploaded it to keyring.debian.org, but there's the usual month lag before it the keyring package gets updated. Where does the Debian voting software get the keyring which it uses for checking GPG keyrings? Does it do a gpg --recv-key from keyring.debian.org? (Which has the updated expiration date for my keys) Does it do a finger USERNAME/k...@db.debian.org? (Which has not been updated) Or does it do something else? Thanks, - Ted
Re: Renaming the FTP Masters
On Sat, Nov 06, 2021 at 11:32:35AM +0100, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > Pierre-Elliott Bécue - 06.11.21, 11:06:58 CET: > > That being said, the name is indeed outdated, and "Debian Archive > > Team" sounds quite nice. > > Agreed. I like this name. +1, and +1 about ***not*** trying to do this via a GR. I can't think of a more divisive way to cause dissention, waste a lot of time, and further demoralize many DD's. It's also like using a sledgehammer to try to kill a fly. - Ted
Re: Draft proposal for resolution process changes
On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 06:51:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > 4. The Project Leader has a casting vote. There is a quorum of 3Q. The >default option is "None of the above." Should this be, "unless specified elsewhere"? > > 6.3. Procedure > > 1. Resolution process. > >The Technical Committee uses the following process to prepare a >resolution for vote: > >1. Any member of the Technical Committee may propose a resolution. > This creates an initial two-option ballot, the other option being > the default option of "Further discussion." The proposer of the > resolution becomes the proposer of the ballot option. Here the default option is "Further discussion" as opposed to "none of the above". Is this intentional, or was this a historical artifact? Also, as stated here in 6.3.1.1, it appears that any member of the TC may propose a resolution... on any subject they want? I'm guessing the unstated presumption is this is related to a subject under discussion by the TC. Should this be stated explicitly? Thanks, - Ted
Re: Second call for votes for the GFDL position statement
On Sun, Mar 05, 2006 at 07:03:52AM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote:
> Then mail the ballot to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Don't worry about spacing of the columns or any quote characters
> (">") that your reply inserts. NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed
> (or PGP signed) with your key that is in the Debian keyring.
>
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 25a628e9-d88e-40b7-8e1c-888cff421ea5
> [ ] Choice 1: GFDL-licensed works are unsuitable for main in all cases
> [ 1 ] Choice 2: GFDL-licensed works without unmodifiable sections are free
> [ 2 ] Choice 3: GFDL-licensed works are compatible with the DFSG [needs 3:1]
> [ ] Choice 4: Further discussion
> - - -=-=-=-=-=- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
Let's try again with the correct GPG key I second Craig's proposal. - Ted On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:30AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I second Craig's proposal. > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > The Debian Project, > > > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > > distributes, > > > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > > >further cause for deliberation. > > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this > > proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > > > > craig > > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
Let's try again with the correct GPG key I second Craig's proposal. - Ted On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:30AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > I second Craig's proposal. > > On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > The Debian Project, > > > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > > distributes, > > > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > > >further cause for deliberation. > > > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > > so that the entire proposal now reads: > > > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > > > > craig > > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
I second Craig's proposal. - Ted On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > >further cause for deliberation. > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > so that the entire proposal now reads: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > craig > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
I second Craig's proposal. - Ted On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 09:45:18AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 08:41:35PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The Debian Project, > > > > affirming its committment to principles of freeness for all works it > > distributes, > > > > but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave > > consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not > > serve our goals or the interests of our users, > > > > hereby resolves: > > > > 1. that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the > >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" > >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded; > > 2. that these amendments, which have already been ratified by the Debian > >Project, will be reinstated effective as of September 1, 2004 without > >further cause for deliberation. > > i propose an amendment that deletes everything but clause 1 of this proposal, > so that the entire proposal now reads: > >that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the >General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract" >(2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded. > > > craig > signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > But for a font, the ability to tweak the bitmap might well be, because > there is nothing more to a rendered font than the bitmap; for a > binary program, there is a logical structure to the instructions which > it is exceedingly difficult to change without the higher level > language from which it was generated. The value with most modern fonts is *not* the bitmap (and they aren't bitmaps any more, but a set of vectors) but the manual, automatic "programs" that provide the hints. There are actual programs in TrueType fonts, you know. They may be rather simple programs, but so are are most firmware when compared with the full Linux kernel. Other folks have also pointed out that with many logos --- including the Linux penguin logo, it's not just the bitmap, but the multiple layers that were used in gimp that are really the true "source". - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 12:11:03AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > But for a font, the ability to tweak the bitmap might well be, because > there is nothing more to a rendered font than the bitmap; for a > binary program, there is a logical structure to the instructions which > it is exceedingly difficult to change without the higher level > language from which it was generated. The value with most modern fonts is *not* the bitmap (and they aren't bitmaps any more, but a set of vectors) but the manual, automatic "programs" that provide the hints. There are actual programs in TrueType fonts, you know. They may be rather simple programs, but so are are most firmware when compared with the full Linux kernel. Other folks have also pointed out that with many logos --- including the Linux penguin logo, it's not just the bitmap, but the multiple layers that were used in gimp that are really the true "source". - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > But it *is* released. Your claim was that all the fonts would have to > disappear. Actually, no, you haven't substantiated that. Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts. People have argued that since there exists open source tools for editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process. (I've talked to Keith Packard today at XDevConf, who is more than qualified to be an authority on the subject, and he's confirmed that this is what happens.) But we can edit firmware via hex editors too, but firmware is considered evil so they are not considered own "source". If we are going to claim that firmware requires source, and that by the terms of the ammended Social Contract, all works in Debian require source, then either both can be in Debian, or neither can be Debian, or we are using double standards depending when it is convenient. - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > The issue is actually more complex because of the non-free section of > the distribution. The pragmatists will simply use that one. People > like me who suffer from a mild form of Free Software Extremism are > those who are losing most because they can no longer rely on the way > Debian applies the DFSG to decide which packages can go into main. It > looks as if they have to make their own decisions in the future. Well, it may be more than that. We may need to have a different version of the kernel in non-free that actually will work on all of the hardware which Red Hat, SuSE, and every other Distribution. And we may need to have our own installer that also supports these hardware and includes non-free in /etc/apt/sources.list as well, since we might want to be able documentation to our programs (and possibly fonts) in our distribution. - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:08:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen > > with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in > > philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question > > whether the next release of Debian stable will happen before or after > > a stable, usable version of the Hurd, or is it something more than > > that? Only time will tell. > > The goal of Debian is to have an excellent free operating system. > > All three adjectives: excellent, free, and operating, are > non-negotiable. We will not sell out the second because you want us > to think it's a disaster if one or two fonts don't meet it. Excellent, free, operating --- but we may never get around to releasing it? That was precisely my point. - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:46:32PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > But it *is* released. Your claim was that all the fonts would have to > disappear. Actually, no, you haven't substantiated that. Well, there is certainly a double-standard going on about fonts. People have argued that since there exists open source tools for editing fonts, font files should be considered their own source, even if Font Foundries have their own preferred source formats and use propietary tools to create font files via a compilation process. (I've talked to Keith Packard today at XDevConf, who is more than qualified to be an authority on the subject, and he's confirmed that this is what happens.) But we can edit firmware via hex editors too, but firmware is considered evil so they are not considered own "source". If we are going to claim that firmware requires source, and that by the terms of the ammended Social Contract, all works in Debian require source, then either both can be in Debian, or neither can be Debian, or we are using double standards depending when it is convenient. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 10:00:17PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > The issue is actually more complex because of the non-free section of > the distribution. The pragmatists will simply use that one. People > like me who suffer from a mild form of Free Software Extremism are > those who are losing most because they can no longer rely on the way > Debian applies the DFSG to decide which packages can go into main. It > looks as if they have to make their own decisions in the future. Well, it may be more than that. We may need to have a different version of the kernel in non-free that actually will work on all of the hardware which Red Hat, SuSE, and every other Distribution. And we may need to have our own installer that also supports these hardware and includes non-free in /etc/apt/sources.list as well, since we might want to be able documentation to our programs (and possibly fonts) in our distribution. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 09:08:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen > > with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in > > philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question > > whether the next release of Debian stable will happen before or after > > a stable, usable version of the Hurd, or is it something more than > > that? Only time will tell. > > The goal of Debian is to have an excellent free operating system. > > All three adjectives: excellent, free, and operating, are > non-negotiable. We will not sell out the second because you want us > to think it's a disaster if one or two fonts don't meet it. Excellent, free, operating --- but we may never get around to releasing it? That was precisely my point. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to > > achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however, > > I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area. > > now that the Knights Lunar have proved that they are Holier Than > Stallman, can they just get on with the job of killing debian > quickly? watching and waiting for it to die slowly is both painful > and unpleasant. Actually, this may be useful. If this inspires the pragmatists to go make a "Debian Useful" variant that actually has documentation, firmware, fonts, etc. then the fringe fanatics that want to spend all of their time arguing over the Social Contract can do that. This, of course, assumes that people worked on Debian because they were interested in technical excellence. If instead, it turns out there are significant numbers of people who believe their participation in Debian is really more about proving that they are Holier Than Stallman, those that *are* interested in making something useful for their users have their choice of either (a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b) try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other distribution. Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question whether the next release of Debian stable will happen before or after a stable, usable version of the Hurd, or is it something more than that? Only time will tell. But if there are any pragamatists who haven't left in disgust, you should speak out, lest the Knights Lunar demonstrate that they really are all that's left of Debian developer community. - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 12:39:55PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > At the rate we're currently going, I don't really expect to be able to > > achieve this this year. In light of the new Social Contract, however, > > I don't believe there are any other decisions I can make in this area. > > now that the Knights Lunar have proved that they are Holier Than > Stallman, can they just get on with the job of killing debian > quickly? watching and waiting for it to die slowly is both painful > and unpleasant. Actually, this may be useful. If this inspires the pragmatists to go make a "Debian Useful" variant that actually has documentation, firmware, fonts, etc. then the fringe fanatics that want to spend all of their time arguing over the Social Contract can do that. This, of course, assumes that people worked on Debian because they were interested in technical excellence. If instead, it turns out there are significant numbers of people who believe their participation in Debian is really more about proving that they are Holier Than Stallman, those that *are* interested in making something useful for their users have their choice of either (a) trying to see if they have the votes to shut-out the fanatics, (b) try to build something useful that uses Debian as a base, and leaves the insanity behind, or (c) join the Fedora project, or some other distribution. Personally, I'm still trying to decide myself what is going to happen with Debian. Is it a bunch of fanatics who are more interested in philosophy than technology, in which case it is an open question whether the next release of Debian stable will happen before or after a stable, usable version of the Hurd, or is it something more than that? Only time will tell. But if there are any pragamatists who haven't left in disgust, you should speak out, lest the Knights Lunar demonstrate that they really are all that's left of Debian developer community. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL** > > **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't > > have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for > > fonts. In particular, the Truetype Bitstream Vera fonts which were so > > generously donated by Vera was generated not only using propietary > > source files, but also using propietary non-free programs. > > Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument > not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to > modify these fonts? It's been a long time, but I did hack on some fonts > a long time ago and while it wasn't the most fun thing I could have > sworn there was a free program available to do it.. Ah, but I could hack around firmware using a hex editor as well. The question is whether or not a compressed PCF or truetype font file is the "preferred form for modification" --- i.e., source. If the requirement is that "source" is available for all files shipped in main, I don't see how we can include any of our fonts in the Debian distribution. - Ted P.S. For non-x86 kernels, the kernel includes fonts for console support. So despite removing the firmware from the kernel, at least for non-x86 kernels, we will probably need to move the kernel into non-free as well. Yay, rah.
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe > I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, > or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover > all these areas. > > As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these > things removed from the Debian system -- ie main. > > This will result in the following problems: > > ... You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL** **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for fonts. In particular, the Truetype Bitstream Vera fonts which were so generously donated by Vera was generated not only using propietary source files, but also using propietary non-free programs. > * debian-installer will need to be rewritten to support obtaining > non-free firmware but not other non-free packages The debian installer will also need to be rewritten to support obtaining fonts from non-free sources as well, and we will need to move xfonts-100dpi, xfonts-75dpi, xfonts-base, xfonts-scalable, to non-free. What Fun. - Ted
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:54:14PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > * Theodore Ts'o ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL** > > **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't > > have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for > > fonts. In particular, the Truetype Bitstream Vera fonts which were so > > generously donated by Vera was generated not only using propietary > > source files, but also using propietary non-free programs. > > Well, now, I'm not entirely convinced of this. Could a similar argument > not be used on JPEG's or PNG's? Do we have *some* reasonable way to > modify these fonts? It's been a long time, but I did hack on some fonts > a long time ago and while it wasn't the most fun thing I could have > sworn there was a free program available to do it.. Ah, but I could hack around firmware using a hex editor as well. The question is whether or not a compressed PCF or truetype font file is the "preferred form for modification" --- i.e., source. If the requirement is that "source" is available for all files shipped in main, I don't see how we can include any of our fonts in the Debian distribution. - Ted P.S. For non-x86 kernels, the kernel includes fonts for console support. So despite removing the firmware from the kernel, at least for non-x86 kernels, we will probably need to move the kernel into non-free as well. Yay, rah. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > As this is no longer limited to "software", and as this decision was > made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider > non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe > I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, > or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover > all these areas. > > As such, I can see no way to release sarge without having all these > things removed from the Debian system -- ie main. > > This will result in the following problems: > > ... You forgot one other thing. We'll also have to strip **ALL** **FONTS** from Debian, since fonts come in binary form, and we don't have anything approaching the "preferred form for modification" for fonts. In particular, the Truetype Bitstream Vera fonts which were so generously donated by Vera was generated not only using propietary source files, but also using propietary non-free programs. > * debian-installer will need to be rewritten to support obtaining > non-free firmware but not other non-free packages The debian installer will also need to be rewritten to support obtaining fonts from non-free sources as well, and we will need to move xfonts-100dpi, xfonts-75dpi, xfonts-base, xfonts-scalable, to non-free. What Fun. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. > > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you > don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a > life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. - Ted
Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:24:49PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > it is not up to you to tell me HOW i may say something. > > i'll use whatever words i feel are necessary to get my point across. if you > don't like some of the words that i choose to employ, then tough luck - get a life. Craig, It is not up to Thomas alone to tell you how to say something, but the Debian development as a community may choose to set certain societal norms. And speaking in decently and civilly can be one of them. Thomas asked the mailing list as a whole if they thought your style of discourse was acceptable. A number of responsible have responded that they thought it was not acceptable. I will join that number. I will also say this; when you use that kind of language, your will fail to get your point across. When I saw your that e-mail full of curse words and general unpleasantness, I simply decided to delete without bothering to read it any further, because I had better things to do than to try to pick through that kind of nonesnse looking to see if you had a point. Regardless of whether or not we as a cummunity decide to say that sort of thing is beyond the pale (and I agree with Thomas's point that this sort of thing is exactly the kind of behaviour that tends to cause many people --- and disproportionate number of women --- to avoid certain on-line forums), you can not force me to READ what you write. And as long as you write in that kind of uncivilized manner, it will be ultimately self-defeating, since some number of people will simply refuse to read what you post. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > General Resolution: Status of the non-free section > Text: The actual text of the GR is: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied > by a non-free section; there will be no more stable > releases of the non-free section. The Debian project > will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is > repealed. > > Since this modifies the Social Contract, thsi requires a 3:1 > majority to pass. > > > AmendmentAnthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Amendment Text The actual text of the amendment is: >Propose that the Debian project resolve that: > >Acknowledging that some of our users continue to >require the use of programs that don't conform to the >Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our >commitment to providing the contrib and non-free >areas in our archive for packaged versions of such >software, and to providing the use of our >infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and >mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of >non-free software packages. Umm this is very confusing. Are we expected to cast votes for both the amendment and the general resolution at the same time? Whether or not the Amendment carries is going to make an extreme and material different as to how I would vote on the General Resolution, since the Amendmend effectively changes the sense of the Resolution by 180 degrees. If we are forced to cast both votes at the same time, someone who wants to keep non-free and who votes aye to both the Amendment and the Resolution may find themselves inadvertently voting to ditch non-free. On the flip side, someone who wants to jettison non-free could vote aye to the Resolution and nay to the amendment, could if the amendment carries, inadvertently end up voting to keep non-free, which would not be their intent. As someone who would like to see non-free be kept, I suppose the valid strategy, assume we are forced to vote on both the amendment and the resolution at the same time, would be vote "nay" to the resolution, and "aye" to the amendment, since if the resolution fails, the status quo would prevail, and the votes on the amendment could be used to provide a moral mandate one way or another about how DD's feel on this issue. This seems like a fairly convulting situation, however, and being forced to vote on both seems to require a certain amount of gaming one's vote, which is in my opinion, undesirable. - Ted
Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:42:23PM -0600, Debian Project Secretary wrote: > > General Resolution: Status of the non-free section > Text: The actual text of the GR is: > > The next release of Debian will not be accompanied > by a non-free section; there will be no more stable > releases of the non-free section. The Debian project > will cease active support of the non-free > section. Clause 5 of the social contract is > repealed. > > Since this modifies the Social Contract, thsi requires a 3:1 > majority to pass. > > > AmendmentAnthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Amendment Text The actual text of the amendment is: >Propose that the Debian project resolve that: > >Acknowledging that some of our users continue to >require the use of programs that don't conform to the >Debian Free Software Guidelines, we reaffirm our >commitment to providing the contrib and non-free >areas in our archive for packaged versions of such >software, and to providing the use of our >infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and >mailing lists) to help with the maintenance of >non-free software packages. Umm this is very confusing. Are we expected to cast votes for both the amendment and the general resolution at the same time? Whether or not the Amendment carries is going to make an extreme and material different as to how I would vote on the General Resolution, since the Amendmend effectively changes the sense of the Resolution by 180 degrees. If we are forced to cast both votes at the same time, someone who wants to keep non-free and who votes aye to both the Amendment and the Resolution may find themselves inadvertently voting to ditch non-free. On the flip side, someone who wants to jettison non-free could vote aye to the Resolution and nay to the amendment, could if the amendment carries, inadvertently end up voting to keep non-free, which would not be their intent. As someone who would like to see non-free be kept, I suppose the valid strategy, assume we are forced to vote on both the amendment and the resolution at the same time, would be vote "nay" to the resolution, and "aye" to the amendment, since if the resolution fails, the status quo would prevail, and the votes on the amendment could be used to provide a moral mandate one way or another about how DD's feel on this issue. This seems like a fairly convulting situation, however, and being forced to vote on both seems to require a certain amount of gaming one's vote, which is in my opinion, undesirable. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:55:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > [For the W3C docs, for example, there is no reason except convenience > > why they would _have_ to be served from .debian.org - could we get them > > to host the .debs of their own documentation? ] > > The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be able > to make a commitment, and how will the end user know that this is the > right place for searching them, and be sure he can trust a random > apt-source he place in his list. There's a more important reason not to split out the documents, which is that at least when they're part of non-free, we know about the namespace reservation. The most you start encouraging, in a big way, the proliferation of third-party servers, you start running into the same problems that RPM-based systems such as rpmfind have: *) It's confusing to users; they need to find all of the various different places where packages are kept. *) If you have packages which have cross-dependencies across different 3rd party servers, life gets even harder. Not only does "what 3rd party archive do I need" become exponentially more difficult, but potential version conflicts/dependencies also become much more likely. *) Once you lose control of the namespace, then life becomes even worse. Conflicts in naming of packages between two 3rd party servers become more likely, but even worse are conflicts between a name which has been used for years and years by some 3rd party server (which might be moderately famous and used by a large proportion of Debian users, Stallman's rants irregardless), and a new Debian package. Now, you can hand-wave these problems away as "well, these are all non-DFSG compliant packages", so it doesn't matter. But the last actually starts to impinge on core Debian packages. If you have a new Debian package which conflicts with a name in a third party package, and other packages that declare dependencies on this name, very confusing things can happen since some packages may think that a dependency has been satisfied, when it fact it really hasn't. This will cause confused users, and ultimately bug reports complaining about the problem. (And of course, when they file bug reports on a package with a namespace conflict, the bug report may very well go to the wrong maintainer, depending on which package they actually have installed on their system.) To some extent, we have some of these problems today. People have experimental deb archives, and there is of course the jokingly named "debian-non-legal" archive at marillat.free.fr, and some 3rd party debian archives already have packages with naming conflicts with official debian packages, most notably at rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org. And truth to tell, these problems are mostly manageable. While these problems are relatively small at this point, if we were to start start seeing very large numbers of 3rd party servers, the possibilities of namespace conflicts would start to go up, and ultimately Debian users (who like it or not, *do* use non-free packages; the fact that we have such the non-free archive at all is a recognition of this fact) would start to suffer. The end state would be that Debian will no better in this regard than any of the other RPM-based distributions using rpmfind. Of course, it is possible to solve this problem technically; the Linux Standard Base has one solution to the package naming problems, but it makes the names look very ugly --- you do stuff like name packages "lsb-adobe.com-acrobat-reader". People have laughed in derision becomes the names seems overengineered, but trust me, it's better than the alternative, which is lots and lots of namespace collisions. Alternatively, if we were willing to make changes to dpkg, we could start adding 128-bit UUID's to packages, and optionally have dependencies that are based on the 128-bit UUID's. Ultimately, we could transition the real "name" of the package to be the UUID, and use the human-readable name as a user-interface crutch. This is not a trivial change however; this would ultimately be a fundmental architectural change to the Debian packaging system. The bottom line is that naming is a fundamental computer science problem, and naming is non-trivial, especially in a distributed system. My advice? Keep everything centralized in a debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much, ***much*** simpler. - Ted
Re: summary of software licenses in non-free
On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 12:55:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > [For the W3C docs, for example, there is no reason except convenience > > why they would _have_ to be served from .debian.org - could we get them > > to host the .debs of their own documentation? ] > > The problem with third party servers, is for how long they will be able > to make a commitment, and how will the end user know that this is the > right place for searching them, and be sure he can trust a random > apt-source he place in his list. There's a more important reason not to split out the documents, which is that at least when they're part of non-free, we know about the namespace reservation. The most you start encouraging, in a big way, the proliferation of third-party servers, you start running into the same problems that RPM-based systems such as rpmfind have: *) It's confusing to users; they need to find all of the various different places where packages are kept. *) If you have packages which have cross-dependencies across different 3rd party servers, life gets even harder. Not only does "what 3rd party archive do I need" become exponentially more difficult, but potential version conflicts/dependencies also become much more likely. *) Once you lose control of the namespace, then life becomes even worse. Conflicts in naming of packages between two 3rd party servers become more likely, but even worse are conflicts between a name which has been used for years and years by some 3rd party server (which might be moderately famous and used by a large proportion of Debian users, Stallman's rants irregardless), and a new Debian package. Now, you can hand-wave these problems away as "well, these are all non-DFSG compliant packages", so it doesn't matter. But the last actually starts to impinge on core Debian packages. If you have a new Debian package which conflicts with a name in a third party package, and other packages that declare dependencies on this name, very confusing things can happen since some packages may think that a dependency has been satisfied, when it fact it really hasn't. This will cause confused users, and ultimately bug reports complaining about the problem. (And of course, when they file bug reports on a package with a namespace conflict, the bug report may very well go to the wrong maintainer, depending on which package they actually have installed on their system.) To some extent, we have some of these problems today. People have experimental deb archives, and there is of course the jokingly named "debian-non-legal" archive at marillat.free.fr, and some 3rd party debian archives already have packages with naming conflicts with official debian packages, most notably at rarewares.hydrogenaudio.org. And truth to tell, these problems are mostly manageable. While these problems are relatively small at this point, if we were to start start seeing very large numbers of 3rd party servers, the possibilities of namespace conflicts would start to go up, and ultimately Debian users (who like it or not, *do* use non-free packages; the fact that we have such the non-free archive at all is a recognition of this fact) would start to suffer. The end state would be that Debian will no better in this regard than any of the other RPM-based distributions using rpmfind. Of course, it is possible to solve this problem technically; the Linux Standard Base has one solution to the package naming problems, but it makes the names look very ugly --- you do stuff like name packages "lsb-adobe.com-acrobat-reader". People have laughed in derision becomes the names seems overengineered, but trust me, it's better than the alternative, which is lots and lots of namespace collisions. Alternatively, if we were willing to make changes to dpkg, we could start adding 128-bit UUID's to packages, and optionally have dependencies that are based on the 128-bit UUID's. Ultimately, we could transition the real "name" of the package to be the UUID, and use the human-readable name as a user-interface crutch. This is not a trivial change however; this would ultimately be a fundmental architectural change to the Debian packaging system. The bottom line is that naming is a fundamental computer science problem, and naming is non-trivial, especially in a distributed system. My advice? Keep everything centralized in a debian.org-hosted non-free section; life will be much, much, ***much*** simpler. - Ted -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
