On Wed, 05. Mar 10:09 Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote: [...] > I wasn't arguing that Red Eclipse is unsuitable for Debian main, not > sure why you appear to think that. > > I was arguing that we don't yet know if Red Eclipse is suitable for > Debian main because the investigation required hasn't yet been done. I am sure that our discussion has shown Red Eclipse is suitable for main and that there is nothing to investigate anymore. Since you are the only one who questions this outcome, I think it is just fair that you also provide concrete examples why you think this is not the case. > This is a long email so I've summarised it here, my arguments boil > down to these points: I think our main difference boils down to this point: I believe Red Eclipse is already free in Debian's sense and complies with the DFSG but a gratuitous decision was made to put the game into the non-free section although it is not different in regard to other games that are already in Debian main. If your rules had been widely accepted, the Debian project would have codified those requirements somewhere since they seem essential to me. This is not something one can simply overlook. If I was wrong and you were right I would expect to find clear guidelines for package maintainers how they should handle artwork in their packages since this issue isn't really new. My impression is that you strive for an even "better" even more free main section and that your intentions are good however your words don't really match the reality. In theory your purposes would be an improvement but de facto they are impracticable and vague. You can't enforce them without having full control over upstream work flows and a huge amount of resources at your disposal. But every good law should be enforcible otherwise it becomes a soft law something that everyone interprets for their own selfish ambitions but rarely for the greater good. You don't concede that artwork is not software. In my opinion they are not the same and there is a reason why licenses like CC-BY-SA exist and not just the GPL. You completely ignore the fact that art is useful in many ways and that "source code" is something intrinsic to software. I can replace images without touching a single line of source code. Bananabread is derived from free artwork provided by the Red Eclipse and Sauerbraten community. By replacing png and jpg images you can basically create a new game. If Red Eclipse is non-free so is Bananabread. [...] > > However it is neither the ftp-masters reject FAQ nor part of Debian's policy. > > The reject FAQ is not comprehensive. For example it doesn't mention > obfuscated JavaScript and they routinely reject packages due to that. > Debian policy doesn't say anything about what is suitable for main or > not, that is determined by the DFSG in general and the ftp-master's > interpretation of the DFSG in practice. Javascript is not an image is not artwork but software. It is absolutely clear to me why they reject minified js files. My point was that they don't reject artwork due to your definitions of "free artwork". If I'm wrong, please point me to an example that supports your point of view. > > If you think this personal guide through to the end, then all games are > > unsuitable for main and I suppose that's what nobody in this team really > > wants. > > I very much disagree with this line of thinking. The DFSG is what > determines if something is suitable for main. The guide is also useful > when auditing upstream tarballs. Indeed. Only the DFSG and the ftp-masters in practical terms define what is suitable for main. Your personal upstream guide should be an recommendation to upstream projects but it can never be a set of rules by whom people are enabled to make decisions whether art is free or not. [...] I skip the software example because it is clear to me and I agree, it doesn't bring us closer to solve the issue with Red Eclipse though. [...] > Let me give you an analogy from a different side > > >From my personal experience being a Debian member since 2006 and a > sponsored packager for a while before that, for the initial upload, > every upstream release and transitions from non-free to main, it is > important to check every file/updated file. This is the responsibility > that people creating and sponsoring Debian packages take on. Yes, we should expect that everyone is responsible enough to abide by the rules and follow the DFSG. Responsibility is not really something you start to learn when you become a contributor to the Debian project. The question is what are the rules and how you can enforce them. My impression is that you are very demanding, a free software theorist and someone who is literally everywhere to point out others mistakes. But when was the last time that you guided someone in this team to implement your numerous rules so that users could actually benefit from them? I believe it is important to walk the talk and think about all use cases and the users in practical terms, otherwise someday we are going to have the perfect distribution but nobody uses it. Regards, Markus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature