[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???


Another public acknowledgement I should make is that I'm no longer an
FTP Trainee ... So my name in the member list [1] is no longer valid.

In the past indeed I have discussed about my shallow experience of
working as a Trainee, and discussed about how some portions of the NEW
queue workflow can be improved. According to the private messages I have
received, I started to doubt whether I should have done that. So ...
sorry again if that introduced inconvenience to you guys.

This is not related to anything about transparency. This is just that I
violated the current rules of the team. And I accept the consequence of
being expelled from the team and the damage to trust.  Well, sometimes
I'm just so blind to see only one thing and get braindead.

[1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:28:19PM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi fellow devs,
> I acknowlege that I sometimes do things in inappropriate ways
> unintentionally, and I accept the consequences of my fault.  And this
> time I did something unprofessional, leaking messages from -private
> without asking for permission first.
> I was wrong. Sorry for that.
> Mo.
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:54:23AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > Hi fellow devs,
> > 
> > I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
> > the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
> > used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
> > the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.
> > 
> > I poked ftp-master about this problem:
> > 
> >   <lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why can
> >   the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be DFSG-nonfree?
> > 
> > And I got the following explanations:
> > 
> >   <spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT.  Otherwise I
> >   would have PRODded.
> > 
> >   <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
> >   modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it was
> >   generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
> >   it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
> >   where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.
> > 
> > The pictures we're talking about are:
> > 
> >   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
> >   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg
> > 
> >   "alipay" and "wechat" are the top-2 domination payment platforms in Chinese
> >   market. And the two QR code pictures are generated from the corresponding
> >   APPs by the upstream author. The whole software project is licensed under
> >   GPL-3 and the QR codes are used for receiving donations.
> > 
> >   Why are they non-free?
> > 
> > Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.
> > 
> >   1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
> >      I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.
> > 
> >   2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
> >      There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.
> > 
> >   3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the package
> >      build process.
> >      "Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the hashsum
> >       mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be evil?"
> >      I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not byte-to-byte
> >      equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.
> > 
> > Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free? Is DFSG over-interpreted in
> > this case? How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
> > 
> > [1] The package has been REJECT'ed for two reasons:
> >     1. "doc/*_donate.jpg are probably not DFSG-free"
> >     2. Missing copyright information for "package/luci-compat/tool/po2lmo/src/*"
> >     There is no problem with the second point. This mail only talks about the first point.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: