Re: Why only one non-free section?
On Friday 11 September 1998, at 10 h 16, the keyboard of Shaleh
<shaleh@livenet.net> wrote:
> Why are we going to wrestle with licenses and what not? If it fails to
> meet our guidelines it gets stuffed in non-free. Limbo. Once the
> license issue is cleared up, it can be moved. Rather than asking us to
> modify Debian, why not endeavor to convince people that free licenses
> are the best?
Because you think I didn't try? I fear most of my work as a Debian packager
will be to discuss legal and politics matters with developers.
For the record, here is the discussion with the author. If someone finds
something I forgot:
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1998 08:18:01 PDT
To: bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
From: Joe Author <@edu>
Subject: Re: XXXXX as a package Linux Debian: authorization and questions
Thanks. I am generally familiar with Debian though I am a user of
Red Hat at the moment. I'm happy to hear that you are interested.
> First, I would like your authorization, and please, if you say yes, keep
> me
> informed of future versions so I can update the package.
Yes, you can make XXXXX a Debian package, provided that it is not
sold. Thus it should go into the "main" section.
I will *try* to notify you of changes in XXXXX but to be honest I am
forgetful about that. We are just one academic lab with a couple of
part-time student employees working on this as well as me. We do not
expect updates any time soon, perhaps early next year. One can look at
http://yyyyy.edu/XXXXX.html for news of them.
> ... Can we
> distribute and use XXXXX according to the above DFSG? Which means, among
> others, that registration should be volunteer and commercial use allowed.
Yes, absolutely. Our policy is that anyone is free to copy and use XXXXX,
it is only when they start to resell it that they would have to negotiate
with our University's Intellectual Property office.
> Regarding the issue of licensing, I suggest, rather than to write a speci=
> fic
> licence for XXXXX, to simply refer to an existing licence, which is simp=
> ler
> and less prone to errors. See <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html>,
> <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license> and <http://language.perl.com/mi=
> sc/Art
> istic.html> for examples.
If we had time to spend on legal matters we would look into this. I cannot
use the Gnu Public License, for example, because it would allow resale
without any compensation to the University of YYYYYY or me.
If you make a Debian package there is the issue of directory structure.
I suggest a directory named (say) "XXXXX" with subdirectories
"src", "exe" and "doc". The sources go in the first, the executables in
the second, and the documentation in the third. The "font*" files go
with the executables but might also be put in with the sources. This
structure is the one we will use for our next major release which will
have the directories in the self-extracting archives (or in the tar archives).
When your package is finished, which shouldn't take long, we could also
distribute it here at the main XXXXX web site (URL above).
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 10:20:47 +0200
To: Joe Author <@edu>
cc: bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>
Subject: Re: XXXXX as a package Linux Debian: authorization and questions
> Yes, you can make XXXXX a Debian package, provided that it is not
> sold. Thus it should go into the "main" section.
No, it cannot. "main" (the only section which is on all FTP servers and on all
CDROMs) is for free software only. Free doesn't mean gratis but means users
are free to do what they want, including selling it (we have two words in
French to say "free", so it's easier to explain in French).
Take one example: CDROMs. Almost all CDROMs are made by private corporations
and sold (because they want to make money). You can always download from the
Internet. But, in most countries (I'm teaching in Africa, for instance),
networks are so slow that it is not really an option. So, if you forbid
selling, you end up depriving of the software the people which are the
poorest. That's an interesting paradox but, from a practical point of view,
it's how it works.
> I will *try* to notify you of changes in XXXXX but to be honest I am
> forgetful about that. We are just one academic lab with a couple of
> part-time student employees working on this as well as me. We do not
OK, I see. What about a mailing list for announces, like many software
packages have?
> Yes, absolutely. Our policy is that anyone is free to copy and use XXXXX,
> it is only when they start to resell it that they would have to negotiate
> with our University's Intellectual Property office.
I suggest that you change this rule. Otherwise, I'll have to upload the XXXXX
package in "non-free", which will exclude it from many users.
If so, is there a text with the formal licence, so I can include it in the
package? (Copyrights are always present in a Debian package, to be sure
authors are not ignored).
> If we had time to spend on legal matters we would look into this.
I would say the opposite, if you don't have time or legal inclination, it's
better to use an already-made licence, rather than reinvent the wheel, in a
domain which is not yours.
> I cannot
> use the Gnu Public License, for example, because it would allow resale
> without any compensation to the University of YYYYY or me.
Most University work is released under a free licence, like the GPL or the BSD.
> If you make a Debian package there is the issue of directory structure.
> I suggest a directory named (say) "XXXXX" with subdirectories
> "src", "exe" and "doc".
The interest (for the users) of Debian packages is they all follow the same
policy (if you're interested, see <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/inde
x.html> but it is rather technical). So, executables are always in /usr/bin,
documentations in /usr/doc/packagename, etc.
> When your package is finished, which shouldn't take long, we could also
> distribute it here at the main XXXXX web site (URL above).
A beta-version is ready and I plan to make it on line (flagged as beta) today.
You'll be
the first informed.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 06:20:28 PDT
To: bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
From: Joe Author <@edu>
Subject: Re: XXXXX as a package Linux Debian: authorization and questions
> > Yes, you can make XXXXX a Debian package, provided that it is not
> > sold. Thus it should go into the "main" section.
>
> No, it cannot. "main" (the only section which is on all FTP servers and o=
> n all
> CDROMs) is for free software only. Free doesn't mean gratis but means use=
> rs
> are free to do what they want, including selling it (we have two words in=
>
> French to say "free", so it's easier to explain in French).
You are then right that it will not go into the "main" section.
> You can always download from =
> the
> Internet. But, in most countries (I'm teaching in Africa, for instance),
> networks are so slow that it is not really an option. So, if you forbid
> selling, you end up depriving of the software the people which are the
> poorest. That's an interesting paradox but, from a practical point of vie=
> w,
> it's how it works.
I have been distributing XXXXX for 18 years, and for many of those years I
spent many hours of my own time stapling and taping packages of diskettes.
People sent me the diskettes, we wrote the software on them, and then
returned them. We spent our grant's money (fortunately we could)
mailing diskettes back to them, even the extra diskettes that were still
blank.
Fortunately people in many countries can now use the Internet and save us
a lot of work that way, so we encourage that. But the diskette distribution
is still available (see the XXXXX documentation to verify
this). Yes, there is cost to the recipient: they have to buy the
diskettes and mail them. We do that so as to discourage frivolous offhand
requests ("yeah, send me all that stuff, XXXX or whatever"). This is less
than the cost of a CDROM, since they get the diskettes back. Furthermore
people in poorer countries are encouraged, as everyone is, to pass the programs
around and copy them.
So, from the practical standpoint, XXXXX is free, freer than it would be
if it were available over the Internet with GPL, and sold by CDROM
vendors. And we are protected against the DNA package vendor who wants to
put XXXXX in and is not inclined to compensate anyone for it. Not all of
these people are just recovering the cost of the CDROM.
> > Yes, absolutely. Our policy is that anyone is free to copy and use PHY=
> LIP,
> > it is only when they start to resell it that they would have to negotia=
> te
> > with our University's Intellectual Property office.
>
> I suggest that you change this rule. Otherwise, I'll have to upload the P=
> hylip
> package in "non-free", which will exclude it from many users.
I suggest you change the "non-free" to be two sections, one being
"free-but-cannot-be-resold". Otherwise you will have to put it in non-free.
If it was in "free-but-cannot-be-resold" then people would know that it
was as cost-free to them as in "free". (I realize that this is high Debian
policy and you probably can't change it by yourself.)
> If so, is there a text with the formal licence, so I can include it in th=
> e
> package? (Copyrights are always present in a Debian package, to be sure
> authors are not ignored).
There is a copyright notice on all source code files and all documentation
files, saying that it is
> (c) Copyright 1986-1993 [or whatever] [...]
this
> document provided that no fee is charged for it and that this copyright notice
> is not removed.
That is less than legally bulletproof but is a starting point for a lawsuit.
If you want to write an introductory notice containing this (the date 1993
changed to say 1998) that would not hurt.
> > I cannot
> > use the Gnu Public License, for example, because it would allow resale
> > without any compensation to the University of YYYYYY or me.
>
> Most University work is released under a free licence, like the GPL or th=
> e BSD.
There is commercial licensing too. And books written by University people
are rarely given away free or made public domain.
> > If we had time to spend on legal matters we would look into this.
>
> I would say the opposite, if you don't have time or legal inclination, it=
> 's
> better to use an already-made licence, rather than reinvent the wheel, in=
> a
> domain which is not yours.
Sure, I'll be happy to. Just point me to the already-made license that
covers things which are available for free but may not be resold. ;-)
> > I will *try* to notify you of changes in XXXXX but to be honest I am
> > forgetful about that. We are just one academic lab with a couple of
> > part-time student employees working on this as well as me. We do not
>
> OK, I see. What about a mailing list for announces, like many software
> packages have?
Would be nice but hard to maintain, when after a delay of several years
a notice comes out but half the addresses turn out to be invalid and
result in stuff bouncing. We really should do this but for now we put the
burden on the potential user to check our web site. Any new releases will,
of course, be announced in the relevant newsgroups and on the "evoldir"
mailing list.
> > If you make a Debian package there is the issue of directory structure.
> > I suggest a directory named (say) "XXXXX" with subdirectories
> > "src", "exe" and "doc".
>
> The interest (for the users) of Debian packages is they all follow the sa=
> me
> policy (if you're interested, see <http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-polic=
> y/inde
> x.html> but it is rather technical). So, executables are always in /usr/b=
> in,
> documentations in /usr/doc/packagename, etc.
That's OK with me. I will almost certainly use the structure I outlined
in future releases, and we will have to put some "except in Debian"
wording in the documentation in the future.
> > When your package is finished, which shouldn't take long, we could also
> > distribute it here at the main XXXXX web site (URL above).
>
> A beta-version is ready and I plan to make it on line (flagged as beta) t=
> oday. You'll be the first informed.
Fine. Let me know and we'll put it on our server as well. Of course
systems that have a C compiler can already install it with our source
tar archive but I recognize that this is hard for the less computer-oriented.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 15:50:45 +0200
To: Joe Author <@edu>
cc: bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr>
Subject: Re: XXXXX as a package Linux Debian: authorization and questions
> So, from the practical standpoint, XXXXX is free, freer than it would be
> if it were available over the Internet with GPL, and sold by CDROM
> vendors.
Being available, under the GPL or other "free software" licence *and* being
distributed by helpful people on floppies, like you do, are not mutually
incompatible.
> put XXXXX in and is not inclined to compensate anyone for it. Not all of
> these people are just recovering the cost of the CDROM.
Sure, CDROM vendors make money with the software. We live in a capitalist
economy, after all.
> I suggest you change the "non-free" to be two sections, one being
> "free-but-cannot-be-resold". Otherwise you will have to put it in non-free.
In practice, the most important problem we have with non-free is that most
CDROM vendors do not bother to check the inividual licences and exclude all
"non-free", even if most packages in "non-free" could be put on CD but users
should pay a fee for commercial use (this is the most common case of
"non-freeness").
If we were to divide "non-free", it would be between
"non-free-but-can-be-included-on-CDROM" and "non-free-other", I believe.
> If it was in "free-but-cannot-be-resold" then people would know that it
> was as cost-free to them as in "free". (I realize that this is high Debian
> policy and you probably can't change it by yourself.)
No, but I can forward it (I just did it.)
> There is a copyright notice on all source code files and all documentation
> files, saying that it is
Ooops, sorry, I forgot that.
> Sure, I'll be happy to. Just point me to the already-made license that
> covers things which are available for free but may not be resold. ;-)
I'm not aware of any "already packaged" licence on that grounds.
> That's OK with me. I will almost certainly use the structure I outlined
> in future releases, and we will have to put some "except in Debian"
> wording in the documentation in the future.
I don't know if there are other XXXXX binary packages in RedHat or FreeBSD or
whatever but all these systems have their own policy, so you should say, IMHO
"except in prepackaged binaries".
> > A beta-version is ready and I plan to make it on line (flagged as beta) t=
> > oday. You'll be the first informed.
>
> Fine. Let me know and we'll put it on our server as well.
Please do not do it yet, it's still beta and I want some feedback from fellow
Debian packagers.
> Of course
> systems that have a C compiler can already install it with our source
> tar archive but I recognize that this is hard for the less computer-oriented.
The main problem is not compiling-and-installing which, with XXXXX, is very
easy. The ma
in problems are:
- where is the documentation (everyone seems to have a favorite place to put
it)? Hence t
he policy.
- how can I uninstall properly (few packages have a "make uninstall" target)?
- how can I have a list of all programs on my system?
Also, not eveybody is eager to keep its C compiler current, experiment with
various comma
nd-line flags when compiling, etc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 16:15:29 PDT
To: bortzmeyer@pasteur.fr (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
From: Joe Author <@edu>
Subject: Re: XXXXX as a package Linux Debian: authorization and questions
> > put XXXXX in and is not inclined to compensate anyone for it. Not all=
> of
> > these people are just recovering the cost of the CDROM.
>
> Sure, CDROM vendors make money with the software. We live in a capitalist=
>
> economy, after all.
Which is precisely my point. Some might feel able to charge big bucks.
Being in a capitalist economy they sure wouldn't compensate us unless
they had to.
> > I suggest you change the "non-free" to be two sections, one being
> > "free-but-cannot-be-resold". Otherwise you will have to put it in non-=
> free.
>
> In practice, the most important problem we have with non-free is that mos=
> t
> CDROM vendors do not bother to check the inividual licences and exclude a=
> ll
> "non-free", even if most packages in "non-free" could be put on CD but us=
> ers
> should pay a fee for commercial use (this is the most common case of
> "non-freeness").
I would say that our policy would end up being that the CD-ROM vendor _would_
have to pay a fee, but the user not.
> If we were to divide "non-free", it would be between
> "non-free-but-can-be-included-on-CDROM" and "non-free-other", I believe.
Again, we would be in "non-free-other" unless the CDROM people wanted to
discuss paying us. It need not be much, perhaps a small percentage of the
sale price.
> > Sure, I'll be happy to. Just point me to the already-made license that
> > covers things which are available for free but may not be resold. ;-)
>
> I'm not aware of any "already packaged" licence on that grounds.
There ought to be.
> I don't know if there are other XXXXX binary packages in RedHat or FreeB=
> SD or
> whatever but all these systems have their own policy, so you should say, =
> IMHO
> "except in prepackaged binaries".
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
> Also, not eveybody is eager to keep its C compiler current, experiment wi=
> th various command-line flags when compiling, etc.
As XXXXX even compiles on Sun "cc", this is less of a problem.
Reply to: