Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[bill-auger]

On 03/27/2018 11:03 AM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
>  models with shaders, game maps with scripting elements, 


to be precise: shaders and other scripting elements are not merely
"functional"; they are literally source code



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

> I've put together updated instructions on the review process on
> . I hope I've captured
> the feedback from our previous discussion, but if I've missed something
> please let me know. I also created a template for the checklist, so
> please take a look at this as well
> .
> Thank you to everyone for your help in refining things.

Thank you everyone for working on this, and sorry for not being able to
help on time.

Regarding what is functional data, I do also see lots of people doing
wrong separations, not in this list. In other "free/libre software"
groups I often see the members ignoring the functional effects of
printer/display color profiles, text fonts, spreadsheets, models with
shaders, game maps with scripting elements, among other things. Let
alone that these same "free/libre software" groups seem to ignore the
computer programs in tax declaration software, fiscal printers and also
token-based authentication technology.

-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
  instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[bill-auger]

ok ive translated the revised checklist into a proper wiki template[1]
that has the look and behavior of a checklist - and the criteria entries
themselves are links to the relevant DSFG sections so the previous
lookup table is not needed

this will make creating new distro pages and maintaining their progress
as simple as modifying this template like so:

{{FSDG_Checklist
|complete-distros=passed
|no-name-confusion=passed
|no-trademark-issues=
|actively-maintained=
|fixes-mistakes=
|avoids-propaganda=
|non-dsfg-software-cleansed=
|no-nonfree-firmware=
|no-nonfree-software=
|no-nonfree-documentation=
|no-nonfree-functional=
|no-nonfree-nonfunctional=
|no-encourage-nonfree=
|no-malware=
}}

being a template avoids any copying errors, gives a uniform look across
pages, and can be updated/styled globally without disturbing existing
pages data


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Template:FSDG_Checklist



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Donald Robertson]

On 03/20/2018 03:09 PM, bill-auger wrote:
> thanks - that was a good explanation - the FSDG really only speaks of
> "software, documentation, fonts, and other data" as being functional and
> "artistic works and statements of opinion" as non-functional - it is
> non-intuitive see any "data" as being functional - even source code is
> just data until it is compiled or interpreted - i agree that exhaustive
> explanations should not be the goal but anything as vague as "other
> data" should be explained to some degree - the rest are explained fairly
> well already - i have just one suggestion
> 
> from the FSDG:
> 
>   “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
> fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does
> not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
> functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.
> 
> criteria 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10:
> 
>   1.8 All software under a free license with source code provided.
>   1.9 Documentation under a free license.
>   1.10 Other "Information for practical use" under a free license.
> 
> according to the FSDG, "Information for practical use" is an umbrella
> term that includes software and documentation along with "other data" -
> so the FSDG only actually distinguishes between 2 distinct classes of
> copyright-able works (the practical sort and the unpractical sort) -
> therefore it seems to me that all three of these  1.8, 1.9, and 1.10
> could be combined into one general criteria - such as:
> 
>   1.8 All "Information for practical use" under a free license with
> source code provided where applicable.
> 
> then for completeness, another could be added like:
> 
>   1.9 All "Non-functional Data" must be freely distributable.

I've added this.

> 
> is there a useful reason to keep these as separate criteria? - the only
> reason i can think of is that the separate items are more cleanly
> associated with the relevant sections of the FSDG - even as such, i
> think the "Non-functional Data" criteria should be itemized on this
> checklist

I'm leaning towards keeping them separate for template because I think
it will be useful in terms of the historical record on a particular
case. If something gets stalled out due to issues with documentation or
other non-software functional data, it seems like it would be useful to
see that distinction. But I'm open to merging them if people think that
that isn't actually useful.
> 
> other than that, all of the criteria on the checklist do correspond to
> some section of the FSDG and are well-explained there - so i wonder
> should the previous checklist[1] page be removed? - it should at least
> be renamed to avoid confusion with this new definitive checklist;
> perhaps to something like: "Additional Tips for Reviewers"
> 
> i have added a wiki page containing a table of links correlating each
> criteria to a section of the FSDG[2] - but for completeness, i will note
> that there are some sections of the FSDG that are not represented on the
> checklist:

Thanks for adding this, I think it is very useful.
> 
> * Non-functional Data

I've added this, it was just an oversight.

> * Trademarks

I had blended this into the name confusion checklist, but that's not
clear and also they are actually separate issues. So I've made a
separate section.

> * Patents

For this there isn't really anything to check, as we don't require them
to exclude something due to patent threats.

> * Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream

My understanding of this was that it was instructions for helping to get
issues fixed, but not something we can check off on from the list, but
if that is mistaken please let me know.

> * Please Teach Users about Free Software

This is another one where it didn't seem like disqualifying criteria;
something to suggest but that wouldn't bar a distribution from endorsement.

> 
> perhaps these were seen as to subjective or unverifiable - but again i
> suggest that the "Non-functional Data" criteria be a checklist item
> 
> 
> [1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist
> [2]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FSDG_Checklist_Reference
> 

-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[bill-auger]

thanks - that was a good explanation - the FSDG really only speaks of
"software, documentation, fonts, and other data" as being functional and
"artistic works and statements of opinion" as non-functional - it is
non-intuitive see any "data" as being functional - even source code is
just data until it is compiled or interpreted - i agree that exhaustive
explanations should not be the goal but anything as vague as "other
data" should be explained to some degree - the rest are explained fairly
well already - i have just one suggestion

from the FSDG:

  “Information for practical use” includes software, documentation,
fonts, and other data that has direct functional applications. It does
not include artistic works that have an aesthetic (rather than
functional) purpose, or statements of opinion or judgment.

criteria 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10:

  1.8 All software under a free license with source code provided.
  1.9 Documentation under a free license.
  1.10 Other "Information for practical use" under a free license.

according to the FSDG, "Information for practical use" is an umbrella
term that includes software and documentation along with "other data" -
so the FSDG only actually distinguishes between 2 distinct classes of
copyright-able works (the practical sort and the unpractical sort) -
therefore it seems to me that all three of these  1.8, 1.9, and 1.10
could be combined into one general criteria - such as:

  1.8 All "Information for practical use" under a free license with
source code provided where applicable.

then for completeness, another could be added like:

  1.9 All "Non-functional Data" must be freely distributable.

is there a useful reason to keep these as separate criteria? - the only
reason i can think of is that the separate items are more cleanly
associated with the relevant sections of the FSDG - even as such, i
think the "Non-functional Data" criteria should be itemized on this
checklist

other than that, all of the criteria on the checklist do correspond to
some section of the FSDG and are well-explained there - so i wonder
should the previous checklist[1] page be removed? - it should at least
be renamed to avoid confusion with this new definitive checklist;
perhaps to something like: "Additional Tips for Reviewers"

i have added a wiki page containing a table of links correlating each
criteria to a section of the FSDG[2] - but for completeness, i will note
that there are some sections of the FSDG that are not represented on the
checklist:

* Non-functional Data
* Trademarks
* Patents
* Contacting Upstream If You're Downstream
* Please Teach Users about Free Software

perhaps these were seen as to subjective or unverifiable - but again i
suggest that the "Non-functional Data" criteria be a checklist item


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist
[2]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/FSDG_Checklist_Reference



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Jason Self]

bill-auger  wrote ..
> some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification

But hopefully not to the point of trying to document and cover all
possible cases. This is probably not possible. Even if it were if
evaluations were treated as a simple, automated, rote process where
someone worked from some sort of fixed recipe then things would
probably be missed. Meaning that having some vagueness is actually a
good thing rather than trying to spell out all possible things and
then missing things or not hitting the intended point. This leaves
things open to have a discussion on the mailing list, potentially with
different answers in different cases depending on the specifics of the
circumstances.

> FSF does not consider data (raw information) or art to be 
> "practical";

I'm not sure what you mean by "data (raw information)" but even if
something were to fall into that Non-functional Data part of the
definition, it must at least provide permission to copy and
redistribute, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes. So it's
also not acceptable for it to be entirely proprietary either.

> it is not at all clear what this criteria covers

Things that are neither software nor documentation. Think fonts,
PostScript Printer Description files, data sets used by speech
recognition software to learn how to recognize words, hyphenation
patterns in dictionaries, etc. It's probably not possible to make an
exhaustive list of everything, which circles back to the point I made
at the beginning that it's best to evaluate things in light of the
specifics of a given case instead of trying to enumerate things.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[bill-auger]

some of these criteria will no doubt require clarification - for
instance: "1.10 - Other Information for practical use" if not
"software" and "documentation" - software and documentation are already
covered in sections 1.8 and 1.9 and the FSF does not consider data (raw
information) or art to be "practical"; so it is not at all clear what
this criteria covers

i think the template page should have a link to the existing
"Free_System_Distribution_Checklist" page[1] which intends to describe
in detail what the criteria entails - it currently mentions only a few
but that page could be expanded to describe the intention of and
guidelines for each criteria on the new checklist

the existing "Free_System_Distribution_Checklist" page[1] already makes
clear something else that should be revised or at least clarified -
namely: the criteria: "1.6 - No software from the List of software that
does not respect the FSDG" - to be clear, that list is not a hard
blacklist but expects each entry to offer advice on how and if the
program can be brought into compliance - many or most of them do, and so
many or most of those programs can be included in a FSDG distro if the
recommended cleansing steps are taken


[1]: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Free_System_Distribution_Checklist
"List of software that does not respect the FSDG"



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

[GNU-linux-libre] Updated process instructions on LibrePlanet.org

[Donald Robertson]

Hello again,

I've put together updated instructions on the review process on
. I hope I've captured
the feedback from our previous discussion, but if I've missed something
please let me know. I also created a template for the checklist, so
please take a look at this as well
.
Thank you to everyone for your help in refining things.
-- 
Donald R. Robertson, III, J.D.
Licensing & Compliance Manager
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone +1-617-542-5942
Fax +1-617-542-2652 ex. 56