| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Debian postpones social contract changesDebian postpones social contract changesPosted Jul 5, 2004 0:20 UTC (Mon) by calc (guest, #22286)In reply to: Debian postpones social contract changes by clint Parent article: Debian postpones social contract changes
On the contrary the old old version of the SC just allows some people to
(Log in to post comments)
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 0:46 UTC (Mon) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] Indeed it is best left to the reader; I determine that it means that Debian prefers shipping an up-to-date release with some freeness issues (sarge) to shipping an ancient release with at least as much freeness issues (woody).Everyone seems to forget that it doesn't matter much from the freeness perspective which way this vote went; either way Debian is stuck with a stable distribution that has some freeness issues for quite a while. I know I'd prefer to have newer software if the problems remain the same. I do hope that they'll try to hurry up the next release after Sarge a bit, though, with these problems resolved.
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 0:55 UTC (Mon) by calc (guest, #22286) [Link] The problematic files in the archive are known and could be removedeasily before Sarge is actually ready for release. Sarge still has 320 release critical bugs that need to be fixed before release and that number has not been going down. So the only thing this vote encouraged was for Debian to have freeness issues until Sarge+1 which is likely to be another 2-3 years away.
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 6:45 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The problematic files in the archive are knownEr, no, the classes of problematic files are known. Nobody has (e.g.) yet done a comprehensive audit of all documentation in Debian and pulled out the non-free stuff.
and could be removed easily before Sarge is actually ready for release.As long as you don't mind a distro with very little documentation and that (because of the removal of non-free firmware) doesn't actually work on a lot of people's machines, sure. But Debian is supposed to be high-quality, as well as free.
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 9:46 UTC (Mon) by calc (guest, #22286) [Link] We don't even know for certain that all the real software in the archiveis under proper licenses, we think they are but there has never been a comprehensive audit like you claim will be done for non-software. Debian removes non-free software as people realize something is not right. We already know of many non-free non-software items in main but this GR states that they don't matter and can be released with Sarge anyway. That is the problem. There is little documentation that is in violation outside of FSF produced documentation since those are about the only ones using the GFDL in non-free ways. The firmware issue is a red herring the only major item that needs firmware, that is also non-free, is the tg3 gigabit nic driver and it works in 99% of the cases without the firmware, note that the BSD's version of the driver does not include the firmware either.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 5, 2004 13:53 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] My take on this one is that those claiming invariant documentation sections are "non free" seem to misunderstand the difference between the positive freedom to change software, and the moral purpose of invariant documentation sections. The latter seems intended to prevent mis-representation of the origins of work and the opinions of particular authors.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 5, 2004 15:00 UTC (Mon) by clint (subscriber, #7076) [Link] It seems that some misunderstand the immoral purpose of intellectual property laws. There are practical concerns regarding license compatibility and software freedom.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 6, 2004 6:34 UTC (Tue) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] How does an invariant section in documentation differ from an invariant section in software? Either could be a method to convey a lecture on whatever the creator considered important. Either makes you drag along a big chunk of inconvienant material whenever you want to copy the work, or use any non-trivial piece of material from it.Personally, for me, one of the important freedoms of free software is that I can change the program to fit me. What if an anti-semite includes a piece of unremovable hate literature in his otherwise excellent documentation? If I don't like something about free software I change it; why should Debian consider that document with an unremovable, and in some places illegal, obnoxious piece of hate literature attached to it free?
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 6, 2004 20:38 UTC (Tue) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] The fact that a piece of software comes with a free software license does not prevent it from being obnoxious or being used for obnoxious purposes. Neither is any Debian maintainer obliged to package anything simply because it comes with a free license. The same applies to documentation whether it contains invariant sections or not. I agree that a documentation section which was both invariant and genuinely obnoxious would prevent otherwise useful parts of the document being reused with this kind of license. If the document is well written then invariant sections are more likely to be used for reasonable purposes. The appropriate use of invariant sections should in any case be constrained to prevent the whole document from becoming obsolete, e.g. I consider an example of appropriate use would be to prevent misrepresentation of overtly historical contents describing original authorship and process. Another example might be if the author wishes to use the platform provided by their document to make a short charitable appeal.The decision as to whether or not to package the document should then be made based on whether the document, as updated in accordance with its license, is still useful. It would be entirely reasonable for a package maintainer to decide not to include it because the usefulness does not make the historical baggage carried in invariant sections worth carrying. But please be clear that if the baggage is not obnoxious then this is an issue of practicality, as opposed to ethics. I have done, and am likely to continue to write opinions under my own name which can be freely copied accurately and in full, or quoted based on existing and universal fair-use rights, or not reused at all because I don't like having my opinions distorted or misrepresented. For example I would consider your copying a distorted and doctored version of this posting (e.g. to make me look evil) as being in breach of my moral as well as my legal rights. However, I have no objection to you copying it accurately and completely for any purpose. I need make no such restriction on software which I author and distribute under the GPL because the same problem does not arise here. You might argue that being able to misrepresent without breaching legal copyright is a kind of freedom, but I think this takes away from the more important freedom of authors to be correctly heard. If the Debian community does not understand this distinction, then I am saddened that by effectively reducing the freedom of Debian documentation authors in this way, it makes the results of the collective efforts of the Debian community less valuable to everyone else.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 8, 2004 1:57 UTC (Thu) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] It would be entirely reasonable for a package maintainer to decide not to include it because the usefulness does not make the historical baggage carried in invariant sections worth carrying. But please be clear that if the baggage is not obnoxious then this is an issue of practicality, as opposed to ethics. First place, obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder. But this argument extends to software just as well as documentation. If there is obnoxious licensing on a program, you are welcome not include it. Should we toss aside the DFSG completely? Furthermore, it resticts further usage. Your ten page essay can't be reasonablly attached to a one-page reference sheet, or comments in a program. For example I would consider your copying a distorted and doctored version of this posting (e.g. to make me look evil) as being in breach of my moral as well as my legal rights. It is, but it has nothing to do with copyright law. I could easily write an evil version of this posting that didn't infringe copyright. It's called libel. In any case, the DFSG already permits you to require prominent notification of modifications. If that's your goal, then your license is both insufficent, since it only protects against modifications of your license, and overbroad, since it protects against translation and corrections of historical inaccurracies.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 9, 2004 11:19 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] If there is obnoxious licensing on a program, you are welcome not include it. Should we toss aside the DFSG completely?No, but a more complete understanding of freedom and practicality issues will lead to better interpretation and possibly formulation of these guidelines. I happen to believe the FSF, in creating its documentation license allowing invariant sections, has a better understanding of the wider issues than those who would interpret the DFSG narrowly to always exclude such materials. I think the issue of obnoxiousness is orthogonal to this. Consider for example, misuse of any software/documentation taking away the freedom of victims of racist abuse not to be targetted by hate crimes. If any Debian package mainainer did not have the common sense to exclude affected materials, this could perhaps be handled by updating the DFSG to exclude such attacks on people's freedom, or by updating the community membership agreements to enable action against any kind of attack on freedom by a community member on a case by case basis. Many community organisations have articles of association allowing exclusion for activities likely to bring the community into disrepute. Any free community has the right to disassociate itself from such a member. This approach seems to allow a more free process, because it arises from the assumption that a member should be trusted by others within a community to operate within guidelines as opposed to excessively detailed constraints . If a maintainer acts in bad faith, the community can exclude that individual. The alternative is to have a rapidly growing body of detailed bureacratic rules and regulations and a time consuming and legalistic process for interpreting and enforcing these. Furthermore, it resticts further usage. Your ten page essay slight exaggeration can't be reasonably attached to a one-page reference sheet, or comments in a program. You can always quote based on fair use, or consult with the author if a good reason for a license relaxation would allow for kinds of positive reuse not forseen by the author. OK, sometimes impractical - such is life. In any case, the DFSG already permits you to require prominent notification of modifications. Given that this is so, extension of this principle of allowing original authors to require maintenance of development history, or other reasonable use of invariant documentation sections need not be opposed on grounds of principle.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 9, 2004 22:18 UTC (Fri) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Consider for example, misuse of any software/documentation taking away the freedom of victims of racist abuse not to be targetted by hate crimes. [...] this could perhaps be handled by updating the DFSG to exclude such attacks on people's freedom, It is inherant in the nature of Free software and the DFSG that it is free for everyone. The racists, the egalitarians, the fundamentalists, the secularists, all of them. I don't look forward to a day when debian-legal argues about whether an article asking for money for a Israelite charity, or a Palesteinian charity, or an Iranian or Hutu charity is against the DFSG. It's designed to be neutral on that. Your solution does not solve the problem, of course. Religious statements of faith are going to be offensive (and possibly illegal in some places), even when entirely positive. Certain statements about programming languages can piss off some people. Free software gives you the right to change your system to make it work for you, and that may very well include removing personally offensive texts, no matter how innocous they may be to everyone else. [Your ten page essay is a] slight exaggeration There are invariant sections on FSF documentation that are probably about ten pages.You can always quote based on fair use, or consult with the author if a good reason for a license relaxation would allow for kinds of positive reuse not forseen by the author. OK, sometimes impractical - such is life. I can do the same thing for software. But the DFSG is designed to make sure I don't have to jump through hoops with "fair use" (which is very complex once you're dealing with more than one nation, and often even if you aren't.) It's there to make sure that I don't have to chase down the original author to reuse the source. The DFSG is designed so I have the right to modify and redistribute without asking anyone's permission. And that's what it comes down to.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 11, 2004 16:38 UTC (Sun) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] Your solution does not solve the problem, of course. Religious statements of faith are going to be offensive (and possibly illegal in some places), even when entirely positive. Certain statements about programming languages can piss off some people. Free software gives you the right to change your system to make it work for you, and that may very well include removing personally offensive texts, no matter how innocous they may be to everyone else.Yes, I accept that there are innumerable things a software user might complain about, many of which most people would find innocous. For example, my brother, who maintains a popular GPL'd XML parsing package was criticized for writing this in Java, in the sense that his product then required non-free support software (compiler/class library/VM?). But even RMS had to start writing free software using something else to develop it upon. As it is unrealistic to be able to get everyone to agree on everything, in the end this boils down to dispute resolution protocols. If a complaint, of a kind arguably but not explicitly covered by the DFSG, is made against mutable software, does the complainer have a right to have this removed from the whole of Debian free if it is maintained by another Debian developer who does not agree with requested changes ? Presumably the Debian community has some means of interpreting the DFSG to resolve this kind of dispute between a maintainer and a change requester if the 2 can't agree amongst themselves ? I accept that there are circumstances where the degree of mutability of the material at issue may in some cases make it easier for a change requester and maintainer to resolve this kind of dispute without involving other parties. The point I am making is that disputes of this kind are likely to occur anyway in fully mutable software or documentation, and if you need a resolution protocol for arguable cases, why not allow maintainer discretion over useful documents with generally uncontentious invariant sections ? If the Debian community were able to give greater freedom to maintainers who are signed up to the DFSG guidelines and social contract etc, by allowing them more discretion in common-sense cases, would this not encourage more software developers with an interest in free software to aspire to become Debian maintainers ? The reason I continue to question your almost but not completely convincing case is this: To a developer of free software who is a Debian development-community outsider, this kind of issue makes a distribution which I use and respect greatly from a technical point of view into something less attractive than it would otherwise be for me to participate actively in contributing more directly towards Debian development.
FSF GFDL and "non free" Posted Jul 12, 2004 19:06 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] I accept that there are innumerable things a software user might complain about, You're missing the point. If you don't like the public domain edition of the Dhammapada in Debian, you are free to mangle it until it becomes aligned with the Christian faith. That's what Free means. It doesn't mean that we will mangle it in Debian. if you need a resolution protocol for arguable cases, I don't understand what you're going on about here. Technical matters are left to the maintainer, though the Technical Committee can overrule in extreme cases. License matters are handled through debian-legal. The point I am making is that disputes of this kind are likely to occur anyway in fully mutable software or documentation, You can change it if you want. That doesn't mean that Debian is going to change it just because you want it changed. why not allow maintainer discretion over useful documents with generally uncontentious invariant sections ? Why have a DFSG at all then? Why not just give maintainers blanket discretion over any program's license?
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 8:08 UTC (Mon) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] You're oversimplifying the issue; documentation is relatively easy to handle compared to the other stuff like non-free firmware.
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 9:15 UTC (Mon) by calc (guest, #22286) [Link] Ripping out non-free firmware has been done for a while in Debian when itwas noticed. Certainly more than a year ago the first firmwares were removed.
Debian postpones social contract changes Posted Jul 5, 2004 14:28 UTC (Mon) by mjr (subscriber, #6979) [Link] Hm, I gathered from the developer irc channel discussion that the issue is far from resolved, but I might've misunderstood.Regardless, I also recall that the release manager was of the opinion that this whole thing would be a major hassle. Ah well.
|
|
||||||||||||