[DRAFT] resolving DFSG violations
[ This is a DRAFT, only intended to get feedback. Do not second yet! ]
Hi,
Personal opinion, not part of the GR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the past few days, it's become obvious (see discussion in -devel) that
our existing control structures are not effective at enforcing rule #1 of
the Social Contract. SC #1 states that Debian is 100% free, but it doesn't
specify how this is supposed to be enforced.
Traditionally, we have assumed good will, and specially cooperation from
the release team; DFSG violations were considered "Release Critical" bugs
and therefore every one of them would have to be fixed before release.
At this time (and I believe, in part due to historical reasons), the release
team has made it clear that it is not their responsibility to enforce the SC.
On one hand, one could consider that this falls short of compliing with the
goals of the project, but on the other, it's not fair that a problem that
belongs to Debian as a whole is put onto the release team to enforce, at
the expense that their hard work doesn't archieve the results they intended
(i.e. release in time).
My proposal will be, that since the problem belongs to the project as a whole,
we make it the responsibility of every developer to ensure DFSG compliance in
packages that are already part of the Debian archive.
There are four options, which reflect two orthogonal binary choices:
- Whether to make this resolution become part of the SC or not.
- Whether to provide exceptions that would allow Lenny to release sooner.
Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The developers resolve that:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers. When
this happens, any known DFSG violation in the package must be resolved
before the package can be moved back into Debian.
(Since this option does not contradict SC #1, I believe it would only require
simple majority; please correct me if I'm wrong)
Option 2 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The developers resolve that the Social Contract shall be ammended as follows:
--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 21 Oct 2008 14:37:17 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,23 @@ the free software community as the basis
free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
system require the use of a non-free component.
</p>
+ <p>
+ In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+ following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
+ none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+ suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+ ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers.
+ When this happens, any known violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines
+ in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+ Debian.
+ </p>
</li>
<li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
<p>
(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
Option 3 (set an upper limit, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:
When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers. When
this happens, any known DFSG violation in the package must be resolved
before the package can be moved back into Debian.
In addition:
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
release in Lenny
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
license that complies with the DFSG.
(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
Option 4 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:
--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 21 Oct 2008 14:37:17 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,23 @@ the free software community as the basis
free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
system require the use of a non-free component.
</p>
+ <p>
+ In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+ following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+ Debian Free Software Guidelines for 60 days or more, and
+ none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+ suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+ ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+ The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers.
+ When this happens, any known violation of the Debian Free Software Guidelines
+ in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+ Debian.
+ </p>
</li>
<li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
<p>
In addition:
1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
community (Social Contract #4);
2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
release in Lenny
4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
license that complies with the DFSG.
(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
--
Robert Millan
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."
Reply to: