Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Bill Allombert]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:53:19PM -0400, Daniel Dickinson wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 +
> Sam Kuper  wrote:
> 
> To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the
> final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if
> something is wrong.  If I were an ftpmaster and thought I could get
> sued if I obeyed a GR, I would resign from the ftp team, and presumably
> you could lose the team that way, if it were over something that could
> cause legal action.

Frankly I have never seen any serious argument why the FTP masters would be
more likely to be sued that anyone else in Debian. I find that rather
far-fetched, but assuming this is the case, the answer is to restructure our
organization to avoid such liability.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. 

Imagine a large red swirl here. 


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 04:55:39PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 14:55 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> > The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us
> > screaming GR.  Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time.
> > 
> > Not appreciated.  Not at all.
> 
> And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting
> valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they
> resign from maintaining critical packages?

Joss, what both Russ and Petter replied is just that it is _too early_
to have this GR. None of them said that we shouldn't have
it. Personally, I think we should have this GR, but just wait a bit
more to let things get clearer.

> I think Joerg made it clear that the decision is made and he’s not
> coming back on it. The only way left in the average developer’s
> hands is to get the project as a whole override the decision.

We have had a couple of recent proofs that:

1) We are able to contrast Joerg choices when they are inappropriate
   either in content or in form [*]. In this specific case, Joerg's
   perplexity about _potential_ legal issues is not totally unsound.
   FWIW, following the two messages you mentioned, Joerg also posted
   8763i1bwkp@vorlon.ganneff which is a more calm analysis of the
   problem as seen from FTP master point of view.

2) Hurrying to GR text writing can lead to absurd ballots.

I personally would like to have this GR and I would like to drop the
requirement of mentioning all Copyright holders.  Nevertheless the
suggested procedure of first having at least some legal advice and
also discussing the issue a bit more, sounds more than reasonable to
me.

Which problem do you see with it?

Cheers.

[*] http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_002

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Daniel Dickinson]

On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:09:43 +
Sam Kuper  wrote:

> 2009/3/22 Josselin Mouette 
> 
> > And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting
> > valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point
> > they resign from maintaining critical packages?
> 
> Anyhow, let's not throw the baby (the legal right to use Debian
> software) out with the bathwater (a perhaps non-optimally managed
> legal requirement to maintain package licenses).


To be honest I think when it comes to copyright issue ftpmaster has the
final say because they *personally* are the ones legally on the hook if
something is wrong.  If I were an ftpmaster and thought I could get
sued if I obeyed a GR, I would resign from the ftp team, and presumably
you could lose the team that way, if it were over something that could
cause legal action.

If it's not yet clear what is required, then clear that up first,
already.  I don't care if someone won't do maintenance if they can't
maintain according the legal standards that could cause ftpmaster
*personal* legal trouble.

Regards,

Daniel
-- 
And that's my crabbing done for the day.  Got it out of the way early, 
now I have the rest of the afternoon to sniff fragrant tea-roses or 
strangle cute bunnies or something.   -- Michael Devore
GnuPG Key Fingerprint 86 F5 81 A5 D4 2E 1F 1C  http://gnupg.org


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 16:09 +, Sam Kuper a écrit :
> If that pressure stems from a concern that without proper license
> information, Debian users/developers/etc could face legal action, then
> I, for one, as a Debian user, appreciate it.
> 
Hint #1: the complete list of copyright holders has nothing to do with
proper license information.

Hint #2: read what the proposal is actually about if you want to discuss
about it.

kthxbye,
-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
  `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Sam Kuper]

2009/3/22 Josselin Mouette 

> And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting
> valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they
> resign from maintaining critical packages?


If that pressure stems from a concern that without proper license
information, Debian users/developers/etc could face legal action, then I,
for one, as a Debian user, appreciate it.

Perhaps, if maintaining the license information is something that some
package maintainers are not enjoying, those package maintainers should seek
partnerships with people who would take more pleasure in maintaining the
packages' license information. Just a thought.

I admit I haven't been following this debate very closely, however, so if
I've got the wrong end of the stick, please understand.

Anyhow, let's not throw the baby (the legal right to use Debian software)
out with the bathwater (a perhaps non-optimally managed legal requirement to
maintain package licenses).

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Josselin Mouette]

Le dimanche 22 mars 2009 à 14:55 +0100, Peter Palfrader a écrit :
> The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us
> screaming GR.  Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time.
> 
> Not appreciated.  Not at all.

And should anyone appreciate the fact that FTP masters are wasting
valuable developer time and putting pressure on people to the point they
resign from maintaining critical packages?

I think Joerg made it clear that the decision is made and he’s not
coming back on it. The only way left in the average developer’s hands is
to get the project as a whole override the decision.

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
  `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Peter Palfrader]

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.

The original discussion isn't even half over and you come running to us
screaming GR.  Way to abuse our constitution and waste everyone's time.

Not appreciated.  Not at all.
-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:04:36PM +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> > On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > 
> > > If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> > > debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> > > title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
> > > 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.
> > 
> > And for additional info:
> > 
> > http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256
> 
> Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a
> method. I'm very sad. Even if I would agree with any of you on the
> copyright topic, I couldn't ever agree with this behaviour.

I'm not using extortion. I'm protecting myself against spending a
significant amount of time for nothing, as my work on xulrunner 1.9.1,
fortunately only at the starting point, would be rejected by ftp
masters.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Russ Allbery]

Mike O'Connor  writes:

> And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses.  Some of
> them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very
> clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary
> packages.  Some don't have this requirement in the license.  Some are
> less clear.

The BSD license does not require that we list all copyright holders
somewhere in the binary packages.  It requires that we reproduce a *very
specific* copyright notice in all binary packages, namely the one stated
directly above the license terms.  This is quite different if there are
other files that don't reproduce the license and only have a copyright
attached and a note saying they're released under the general terms of
the package (or don't say anything but it's known to the packager that's
the intent), which is not uncommon.

If we replaced that copyright notice with all the copyright holders from
the package and none of those resulting notices were exactly the same as
the one immediately above the license, we'd actually arguably be violating
the BSD license.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Mike O'Connor]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> > copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright.  Once we get
> > this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
> > (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on.
> 
> I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does
> copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require.  I believe they are
> not the same.
> 

And then, of course, there are the other dozens of licenses.  Some of
them (such as the BSD license in /usr/share/common-licenses/BSD) very
clearly require us to list copyright holders somewhere in the binary
packages.  Some don't have this requirement in the license.  Some are
less clear.

stew


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Mark Hymers]

On Sat, 21, Mar, 2009 at 03:08:26PM -0700, Steve Langasek spoke thus..
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> > I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> > copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright.  Once we get
> > this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
> > (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on.
> 
> I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does
> copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require.  I believe they are
> not the same.

Good point.  I think we need to fairly carefully phrase the questions we
ask of the lawyer and would welcome assistance in drafting them.

Mark

-- 
Mark Hymers 

"I told you I was ill"
 The epitaph of Spike Milligan (1918-2002)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Ben Finney]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.

Have we really reached the end of the normal informal discussion
process on this issue without resolution? Proposing a formal GR now
seems very premature.

> If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
> 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.

For what it's worth, my argument is summarised in Message-ID:
<87bprwlp7d@benfinney.id.au>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2009/03/msg00246.html>.

I'll underline the point that the discussion is *recent* and *ongoing*
on this issue, and many points have yet to be made. It still appears
quite feasible that a consensus will be reached *without* invoking any
formal procedure.

-- 
 \“I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said ‘pet |
  `\  supplies’. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that |
_o__) said ‘compact cars’.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney 


pgpZFElBDEJ6y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:04 +0100, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
> Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a
> method. 

Call it extortion if you want, but this is probably going to happen to a
number of large packages unless this requirement goes away.

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
  `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:38:04PM +, Mark Hymers wrote:
> I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
> copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright.  Once we get
> this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
> (basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on.

I think this needs to be a two-part question to the lawyer: what does
copyright law require, and what does the GPLv3 require.  I believe they are
not the same.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 21 mars 2009 à 20:34 +0100, Holger Levsen a écrit :
> seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright 
> still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all 
> authors.

IMHO the policy is already clear on it. Furthermore, I don’t think
anyone is questioning the need for accurate licensing information in
debian/copyright.

-- 
 .''`.  Debian 5.0 "Lenny" has been released!
: :' :
`. `'   Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told
  `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain.


signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message	numériquement signée

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Mark Hymers]

In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, you wrote:
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -

Joss,

To be honest, I've no idea when this policy started (it predates my
involvment with ftpteam is as close as I've come) and personally I think
it's time-wasting nonsense.  On the other hand, as I don't know who
instigated it and why, I'm reluctant to ask for it to be changed without
understanding the rationale behind it.

I've therefore asked the DPL to get us legal advice on the minimum
copyright information we should ship in debian/copyright.  Once we get
this, I propose we amend policy to be crystal clear about what we need
(basically, what we can get away with[0]) and then all carry on.

Given this, would you consent to holding off on the GR until the legal
advice is available?

Thanks,

Mark

[0] Of course, the project could decide that we want more info than that
for whatever reason, but the point is that it'll be clear at that point
what we *have* to provide.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Samstag, 21. März 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> I am looking for seconds.

seconded. Though I would appreciate if it would clarify that debian/copyright 
still needs to be present and list the licence and *should try to* list all 
authors.

And/but I'm confused now, can you really propose a GR proposal and immediatly 
look for seconds, isnt there a need for a discussion period first? (I thought 
so and thats why I've not seconded Jörgs "GR enhancement proposal"... but I'm 
too lazy to dig up policy now, sorry 'bout that.)

> If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> title, especially...

actually, <87r60rgco4@anzu.internal.golden-gryphon.com> was what convinced 
me.

Quoting Manoj here:
 
>   The verbatim copy of the programs source code have the copyright
> notice, so we meet that. Breinging that into this discussion is a red
> herring, and derails discussion on what is required in  debian/copyright;
> nothing in the GPL ever requires a debian/copyright file at all.
>
>Trust me. Lots of people in the world distribute programs, and
> they often do not have debian/copyright files. 


Thinking about it, I also would want policy patches to vote upon. Or is that a 
bad idea?


regards,
Holger


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

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Russ Allbery]

Josselin Mouette  writes:

> as per Constitution 4.1.3, I am proposing the following General
> Resolution.
>
> 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< - 8< -
>
> The Debian project hereby resolves that the copyright files of binary
> packages shipped in the distribution are not required to contain an
> accurate and up-to-date listing of copyright holders.

Can you please let us finish having a conversation before you turn the
issue into a confrontational vote?

Many of us are already trying to work through what the requirements are
and understand from what the current policy stems, including both Manoj
and I who on first glance agree with you, and I have seen no sign as yet
that we can't reach a mutually agreeable conclusion.  But people are
already freaking out about this, despite the fact that the conversation
has just started, and now you're proposing a GR when we have only had one
round of question and reply.

If we reach a clear, unbridgable point of disagreement where both sides
understand the motivating factors of the other side and still disagree,
then we can look at whether a GR is an appropriate resolution.  But right
now, this is harmfully premature.

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


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Patrick Schoenfeld]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 08:36:24PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote:
> On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 
> > If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> > debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> > title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
> > 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.
> 
> And for additional info:
> 
> http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256

Its so easy to give his own opinion more weight by using extortion as a
method. I'm very sad. Even if I would agree with any of you on the
copyright topic, I couldn't ever agree with this behaviour.

Regards,
Patrick


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: GR proposal: Do not require listing of copyright holders

[Teemu Likonen]

On 2009-03-21 19:20 (+0100), Josselin Mouette wrote:

> If you need to understand the rationale, please read the thread on
> debian-devel with "Sponsorship requirements and copyright files" as
> title, especially the 87wsajgefj@vorlon.ganneff.de and
> 87mybehqhx@vorlon.ganneff.de postings.

And for additional info:

http://glandium.org/blog/?p=256


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org