Re: Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[Bill Allombert]

My take on that part:

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> The GR proposal apparently results in useful GFDL-covered material to be
> moved to the non-free section. In a previous GR, Debian has reaffirmed
> support for non-free. Is it a conscious motive or an accidental
> side-effect of this GR proposal to work towards supporting a Debian
> system where users can decide for themselves what "level of freeness"
> they wish to have, complete DFSG-freeness being the strictest possible
> choice? Will the next step be to alter the Social Contract to no longer
> say that contrib and non-free are not part of the Debian system (?5)?

When we voted to 'reaffirm non-free' the usage of non-free was
comparativly higher (netscape and acroread were popular, neither of them
are in sarge). In the last years, a number of non-free packages has been
relicensed to a DFGS-free license, and a number of others have been
relicensed in a way that make them non-redistributable by Debian. The
popularity-contest usage for non-free
 show that there not much
interest in nonfree. A large part of nonfree are previously assumed
DFSG-free software that were discovered non-free. Moving GFDL-covered
packages there only continue this trend.

A popular misconception is that nonfree is mainly for proprietary
binary-only apps (netscape, acroread, SUN JDK, Macromedia flash, etc.). 
None of them are in non-free today.

Moving the GFDL-covered packages to non-free might increase non-free
usage, but I don't see how having non-free softwares in main can be 
any better.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Imagine a large red swirl here.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[MJ Ray]

At the time of writing, I've not seen these two answered:

Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Has Debian explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
> non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use? If so, which GR(s) has
> (have) established this?

I think so. Amongst others, see
http://release.debian.org/removing-non-free-documentation sent as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/09/msg7.html

No GR is required for a delegated decision (Constitution s8.3,
although I can't remember the release team's delegated powers and
I didn't find it on the web site).

The decision can be reversed in some ways by a GR (s4.1.3), which
is what I think the amendment is trying to do, in addition
to issuing a confused position statement (s4.1.5).

-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

I would like to throw my hat in the ring to try to clarify to
 y'all what I believe the GR and amendments are doing, and which may
 explain why the ballot is shaping up the way it is -- and that
 involves the release tea decision that the GFDL is non-free.

I am currently reconsidering the 3:1 requirement for the
 amendment, and also am considering splitting the amendment off into a
 separate GR, since the issues may be only superficially related.


For example, follow the URL in [1], you can see that a number
 of bugs have been declared serious RC bugs. Then, the messages to
 debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org referred to in [1] and [2] are
 messages frmo the release team before ([1]) and after ([2]) the
 release of sarge laying out their position unequivocally.

,[ The release team states: ]
|   * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
|   * GFDL material will not be included in main
`


I posit the GR is a position statement explaining Debian's
 stance. 

,[ Anthony's proposal states: ]
|   * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
| Copies" and "Digital Rights Management"
|   * FSF could make a new version of the license DFSG-free but hasn't
| done so despite four years of negotiation
`


I also think Adeodato's amendment  is actually conflating a 
 position statement and an overturning of the rm team decision. 

,[ Adeodato's amendment states: ]
|   * Override the RM team, and Debian state that  says GFDL is
| non-DFSG-free only in some modes of use 
|   * GFDL material in these modes of use will not be included in main
|   * The problems with GFDL are "The DRM Restriction", "Transparent
| and Opaque Copies" and "Invariant Sections"
|   * Only the "Invariant Sections" problem makes the GFDL
| non-free
|   * The other problems make GFDL incompatible with some other
| licenses, but does not make material with no "Invariant
| Sections" non-free -- thus Debian continues to include it
| in main 
`

manoj

[1]
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED]:gfdl

[2]
Subject: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 20:45:09 -0800

[3]
Subject: Removing non-free documentation from main
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 02:36:11 +0200


-- 
Conquering Russia should be done steppe by steppe.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> Anthony's proposal states or infers
>   * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
>   * GFDL material will not be included in main
>   * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
> Copies" and "Digital Rights Management"
>   * Each problem alone is enough to make GFDL non-DFSG-free
>   * FSF could make a new version of the license DFSG-free but hasn't
> done so despite four years of negotiation

I believe I was fairly careful to only say that the invariant
sections violated the DFSG; though each of those problems makes it
an unsuitable license for main. I haven't seen an argument from the
DFSG why the non-invariant problems make the GFDL non-free, but since
they are guidelines, I don't think that's enough to say they're free
either. "Unsuitable for main" doesn't have those problems.

> Does Debian officially end DFSG negotiations with FSF as a result of
> this GR proposal? If not, what role or purpose does this GR proposal
> have in the context of continued negotiations?

You'll need to ask the people talking to the FSF, or the DPL for that.

> The GR proposal apparently results in useful GFDL-covered material to be
> moved to the non-free section. In a previous GR, Debian has reaffirmed
> support for non-free. Is it a conscious motive or an accidental
> side-effect of this GR proposal to work towards supporting a Debian
> system where users can decide for themselves what "level of freeness"
> they wish to have, [...]

Huh? They can already do that. There's been discussion about making
non-free more fine-grained in various ways; but that's not particularly
related to anything else, though.

> It has been claimed that the amendment in fact says "the GFDL is
> non-DFSG-free even when Invariant Sections are not used, but we will
> include such material in main anyway", contradicting the Social Contract
> (?1). Is this true? If not, why does the amendment require a 3:1
> majority to pass?

If it weren't true, the amendment might imply that "the DFSG now allows
GFDL without invariant sections even though it didn't in the past",
which would also require a 3:1 supermajority. It's also possible it might
override previous decisions by delegates such as the RM team, which would
require a simple majority. I don't think the tech ctte's said anything that
would require overriding, if it had, that'd be a 2:1 supermajority.

> The amendment suggests that Debian encourage -- presumably through its
> developers -- documentation authors to use another license than the GFDL
> (or dual-license). At least one major free software project (KDE) has
> stated that a license change is practically impossible. Does the
> amendment have any other effect besides asking developers to ask
> upstream authors to drop Invariant Sections to avoid their software
> being moved to non-free?

It'll hopefully result in maintainers not sitting on GFDL bugs any longer.
In the event it doesn't, it'll probably result in -qa folks converting
GFDL RC bugs into NMUs or removal requests.

Up until now, TTBOMK, the only recommendation maintainers have had is
suggestions by people along the lines of "don't do too much about this,
pending negotiations with the FSF". Branden or Manoj can possibly give a
more specific outline.

> Is the document
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html an official
> position statement of the Debian project? If so, which GR(s) has (have)
> established this?

No it is not, that's why it's titled  "__Draft__ Debian Position
Statement about...", emphasis added.

I'll be voting both options above FD, and I'd encourage others to do
likewise. If you wnat further discussion -- let's get it out of the
way now; if you want a different outcome to what's proposed so far,
work out what it is and give us another amendment to vote on. I don't
think the supermajority rquirement is likely to matter that much.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[Wouter Verhelst]

[Speaking only for myself, but I do think it reflects the truth fairly
well]

On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:20:32AM +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> These difficulties may be due to English not being my native language,
> to my lack of knowledge of previous events, differences in assumptions
> or various other factors. In any case, here is my understanding, which I
> suspect is flawed:
> 
> Anthony's proposal states or infers
> 
>   * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
>   * GFDL material will not be included in main
>   * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
> Copies" and "Digital Rights Management"
>   * Each problem alone is enough to make GFDL non-DFSG-free
>   * FSF could make a new version of the license DFSG-free but hasn't
> done so despite four years of negotiation

Correct.

> Adeodato's amendment states or infers
> 
>   * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free in some modes of use
>   * GFDL material in these modes of use will not be included in main
>   * The problems with GFDL are "The DRM Restriction", "Transparent
> and Opaque Copies" and "Invariant Sections"

Correct.

>   * Only the "Invariant Sections" problem makes the GFDL
> non-DFSG-free

Almost. Better: Only the "Invariant Sections" problem is a fatal flaw.

>   * The other problems make GFDL incompatible with some other
> licenses, but does not make material with no "Invariant
> Sections" non-DFSG-free -- thus Debian continues to include it
> in main

No. The other problems also make the GFDL non-free; however, Adeodato's
proposal labels these problems as bugs in the license (i.e., we presume
that a strict reading of the current wording does not reflect the intent
of those clauses). As such, since it can be assumed that the bugs will
not cause problems for us, we allow them.

> Some explicit questions regarding Anthony's proposal:
> 
> Does Debian officially end DFSG negotiations with FSF as a result of
> this GR proposal?

No, that's not the intent. The proposal explicitly mentions that this
statement applies to the current version of the GFDL.

> If not, what role or purpose does this GR proposal have in the context
> of continued negotiations?

It may cause some friction, I presume; however, the feeling that we've
been waiting a very long time now is overwhelming for some people, and
that we can't wait much longer. Also, if we want to release etch in
December, this needs doing now.

[...]
> Is the document
> http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html an official
> position statement of the Debian project? If so, which GR(s) has (have)
> established this?

No; nobody ever claimed that it was official, and the document itself
denies any resemblance of officiality.

To make it official, a GR would be needed -- which is exactly what this
is all about.

> Finally, a rhetorical question:
> 
> If Debian has explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
> non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use, but has not adopted the
> position statement referenced above as its official position statement,
> what is the official position statement of Debian regarding the freeness
> of GFDL?
> 
> Answer: that's what this GR is about.
> Is my answer correct?

Yes.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Understanding the GFDL GR proposal and amendment

[Fabian Fagerholm]

Hi,

I hope I'm not the only one who finds it hard to fully understand my
current options in the GFDL GR. In particular, I've become unsure of
what Anthony's proposal is actually saying Debian should do, and of what
the end result of Adeodato's amendment would be. Also, I have found it
difficult to understand what the intent of the proposers is in a larger
context.

These difficulties may be due to English not being my native language,
to my lack of knowledge of previous events, differences in assumptions
or various other factors. In any case, here is my understanding, which I
suspect is flawed:

Anthony's proposal states or infers

  * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free
  * GFDL material will not be included in main
  * The problems with GFDL are "Invariant Sections", "Transparent
Copies" and "Digital Rights Management"
  * Each problem alone is enough to make GFDL non-DFSG-free
  * FSF could make a new version of the license DFSG-free but hasn't
done so despite four years of negotiation

Adeodato's amendment states or infers

  * Debian says GFDL is non-DFSG-free in some modes of use
  * GFDL material in these modes of use will not be included in main
  * The problems with GFDL are "The DRM Restriction", "Transparent
and Opaque Copies" and "Invariant Sections"
  * Only the "Invariant Sections" problem makes the GFDL
non-DFSG-free
  * The other problems make GFDL incompatible with some other
licenses, but does not make material with no "Invariant
Sections" non-DFSG-free -- thus Debian continues to include it
in main


Some explicit questions regarding Anthony's proposal:

Does Debian officially end DFSG negotiations with FSF as a result of
this GR proposal? If not, what role or purpose does this GR proposal
have in the context of continued negotiations?

The GR proposal apparently results in useful GFDL-covered material to be
moved to the non-free section. In a previous GR, Debian has reaffirmed
support for non-free. Is it a conscious motive or an accidental
side-effect of this GR proposal to work towards supporting a Debian
system where users can decide for themselves what "level of freeness"
they wish to have, complete DFSG-freeness being the strictest possible
choice? Will the next step be to alter the Social Contract to no longer
say that contrib and non-free are not part of the Debian system (§5)?


Some explicit questions regarding Adeodato's amendment:

It has been claimed that the amendment in fact says "the GFDL is
non-DFSG-free even when Invariant Sections are not used, but we will
include such material in main anyway", contradicting the Social Contract
(§1). Is this true? If not, why does the amendment require a 3:1
majority to pass?

If the Project Secretary does not interpret the amendment in the same
way as the amendment proposer, resulting in a 3:1 majority requirement,
should the proposer be asked to submit an unambiguous version?

The amendment suggests that Debian encourage -- presumably through its
developers -- documentation authors to use another license than the GFDL
(or dual-license). At least one major free software project (KDE) has
stated that a license change is practically impossible. Does the
amendment have any other effect besides asking developers to ask
upstream authors to drop Invariant Sections to avoid their software
being moved to non-free?


Two questions related to the context of this particular GR proposal:

Has Debian explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use? If so, which GR(s) has
(have) established this?

Is the document
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html an official
position statement of the Debian project? If so, which GR(s) has (have)
established this?


Finally, a rhetorical question:

If Debian has explicitly adopted the view that GFDL is completely
non-DFSG-free regardless of its mode of use, but has not adopted the
position statement referenced above as its official position statement,
what is the official position statement of Debian regarding the freeness
of GFDL?

Answer: that's what this GR is about.
Is my answer correct?


I'm looking forward to reading answers and comments to these questions
and notes, and I hope we can clarify the issue and help voters make an
informed decision.

Cheers,
-- 
Fabian Fagerholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


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