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

AM Report for Mako Hill <mako@bork.hampshire.edu>

Hi,

Summary: I recommend Benjamin "Mako" Hill be accepted as a Debian
developer.

ID:

Mako provided a GPG key signed by steve Kostecke, which is attached:
pub  1024D/607559E6 2000-07-13 Benjamin Hill (Mako) <mako@bork.hampshire.edu>
sig!       607559E6 2000-07-13  Benjamin Hill (Mako) <mako@bork.hampshire.edu>
sig!       37EC7A69 2000-07-14  Steve Kostecke <steve@kostecke.net>
sub  2048g/CDE2041B 2000-07-13
sig!       607559E6 2000-07-13  Benjamin Hill (Mako) <mako@bork.hampshire.edu>

P&P:

I asked him about the DFSG and Social Contract, and he showed that he
understood and agreed with them. I also made sure he was aware of the
relevant Debian procedures (VM digest attached).

T&S:

Make has Debianised most, which I have tested; also he's fixed some of
the outstanding bugs against most.

Debian account name: mako

Regards,

Matthew
--- Begin Message --- 
Matthew,

I've been getting bounced email from your address. I'm sorry if I've been
sending you two copies of everything. What is the email address I should use
to reach you? 

And I hope your vacation was nice. I took a short one week trip of my own
that was a bit unexpected. I didn't have access to email or I would have
been sure to tell you. I hope that is alright. 

I don't know whether you saw it on -devel but I went ahead and adopted the
'most' package and another developer has agreed to sponsor the package in
for me if I decide to submit a new one before my NM process is finished.
Additionally, Bill Geddes (another developer) has agreed to hand me control
of the 'aub' package which I have been playing with and considering taking
over upstream development (it hasn't been touched in years but it still
pretty widely used but badly in need of bug fixes and a pretty major
rewrite). I don't see an aub release as being realistic until fall at least.

> DFSG: what do you think the principle freedoms encapsulated in the DFSG are
> (assume I don't know the DFSG)

Borrowing pretty heavily from FSF's answer to the question, "What is Free
Software?", I think that the DFS was created to protect and encourage
freedom that can be divided into three main types:

(1) the freedom to run the program;
(2) the freedom to change the program;
(3) the freedom to distribute or redistribute the program.

The first point in the DFSG, "Free Redistribution," protects the users or
developers right to redistribute the program. Barriers to the distribution
and redistribution of a piece of software have been lifted by requiring
that the program be distributable at a price, or at no cost, and/or as a
smaller piece in a larger project, and by requiring that the program be free
from royalties or fees from sale

The second point in the DFSG, "Source Code," protects the user and
developers right to both change the program and to distribute the program.
This point requires that the software allow distribution in both
source and compiled form. The requirement that source be made public gives
everyone the tools to change, understand, and distribute the software.
Without available source code, a users ability to change the software is
almost none.

The third point, "Derived Works" protects the second and third freedoms.
Protecting derived works is, by definition, protecting a developers right to
change a piece of software. Additionally, this point also protects a
developers right to redistribute their changed version.

The fourth point is, as is stated in the DFSG, a compromise. It allowed for
a piece of software's authors to prohibit the distribution of modified
software, but only if the author allowed distribution of software with patch
files. This allows the author to force the integrity of their code without
blocking other's ability to change, and redistribute the program.

The fifth and sixth points, "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"
and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" ensurers that all users
and developers, be they corporate, non-corporate, black, white, police, one
political party or another, or anyone else, are ensured the same freedom to
run, change, and redistribute any software that falls under the DFSG. This
ensures that all users are guaranteed equal access to the three freedoms
regardless of who they or what they plan on using it or modifying the
software for.

The seventh point, "Distribution of License" also works to ensure the
integrity of a programs freeness by blocking the use things like
non-disclosures agreements which would would compromise the freedom's that
the DFSG works to protect and ensure.

The eighth point, "License Must Not Be Specific to Debian", ensures that the
freeness of a the software not be limited to its use in Debian. This allows
others the ability to change, run, and redistribute Debian itself--ensuring
that Debian is not only a collection of free software but free software
in and of itself.

The ninth point, "License Must Not Contaminate Other Software" ensures that
the software in Debian not reach out beyond its own code to compromise the
ability to run, distribute, or change other discrete software packaged and
distributed with it.

The tenth and last point simply gives examples of licenses that satisfy the
above points and therefore fall under the DFSG.

DFSG points two and three protect the freedom to change a program.

DFSG points one, two and three protect the freedom to redistribute a program.

DFSG points four through nine, protect all three types of freedom by
insuring that the free software guidelines apply in all situations. By
protecting against discrimination, the freedoms are secured for all groups
of people. By protecting against NDAs, contamination, and Debian specific
licenses, loopholes are closed that would have reduced the effectiveness of
the DFSG is securing and ensuring the freedom.

If I haven't satisfied the requirement that I prove that I believe and agree
in the importance of the DFSG, you can be assured that I do.

> Social Contract: Given the current flamefest about this General Resolution,
> how do you feel it interacts with the Social Contract as it currently
> stands?

I was almost HOPING you wouldn't ask this. I have to admit that I read the
whole flamefest closely and remembered you posting about the GR and I'll be
honest and admit that I went back to check your own views on this issue when
I got this question in the mail because I realize that the tensions and the
opinions along these lines run pretty strong.

Of course, I wouldn't and won't change my own answer or opinions on the GR
but I guess I was just curious to see where you stood. I'm guilty of being a
bit relieved because your arguments were grounded in the Social Contract,
were well thought through, and makes a huge amount of sense to me.

The Social Contract lays forward the purpose of the Debian project and the
tenants which should guide Debian developers. It states that Debian should
be "guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community." 

I think the flamefest is brought on by two things: 

(1) differing opinions on what the "needs" or the "best interests" of the
Debian's users or the free-software community are and;

(2) the best way to serve the needs and best interests of users, the needs
and best interests of the development community, and the needs and best
interests of the free software--especially when these may appear to
contradict.

A problem lies in the fact that the needs and the desires of the users may
not be the same as the needs of the development community and these needs
may not be ones that promote free software. Still, Debian is not permitted
to abandon one of these causes in favor of the other because the Social
Contract does not, and should not, specify a precedence of one over the
other. This entire situation is complicated by differing ideas on where the
balance is between the two.

The space for contradiction along these lines is not something created by
the GR. I feel that this is a problem that the Social Contract's authors
were totally aware of and one that they worked hard to deal with while
drafting the Contract. 

I feel that, the Contract's authors tried to be explicit in setting a
compromise to help resolve these rough issues. They stated that Debian would
always be 100% free software (as determined by the DFSG) but that non-free
software would be included on FTP servers.

In the fifth point, they explicitly state that non-free will be set up on
the servers but would NOT be officially included in Debian. This compromise
allows software that is non-free to stay separate from Debian, and still
allow Debian to promote free software while serving the needs and desires of
users who choose to use non-free software.

The GR, and those who support it, argue that the fifth point of the social
contract was never put to a real debate and that, more importantly, it was a
product of its specific time and situation. Few will argue that there are
more free alternatives for popular non-free applications today than there
were when the Social Contract was drafted.

Those who support the GR feel that at this point, with programs like Mozilla
replacing Netscape and GnuPG replacing PGP, it is now a good time for Debian
to take a new step toward promoting free software by eliminating non-free
software from Debian's servers and mirrors and by making it more difficult
for people to obtain non-free software (ie it is not apt-get-able by
default). The GR's supporters feel that this step would go far to promoting
free software without overly-compromising the needs of users.

Those who oppose the GR disagree. They also want to support free software
but feel that removing non-free from the FTP servers will cause more damage
than good. They feel that by removing non-free, Debian will be failing in
their agreement to support the needs of their users. Additionally, many
people feel that removing non-free will not go far to benefit free software
at all. They argue that this extreme reaction to non-free software will
alienate users and paint the developers as zealots hurting the palatability
of the distribution, its long term penetration and popularity, and it's
ability to promote free software effectively.

No member of Debian (or future hopeful member including myself), on either
side of the flame fest is clamoring to tear down the Social Contract. I
believe that because the Social Contract so explicitly takes on the issue of
non-free on the FTP servers, it would, however, need to be changed.

The issue is s sticky one. How does one answer the question, "what is the
best way to serve one's users and free software?" I think the current
flamefest has revealed that there is no lack of answers, and strong, wildly
varying answers, to that question. However, we are certainly VERY FAR from
consensus around that issue.

The GR is controversial because people on both side of the issue feel that
deciding one way or another will render them better able to fulfill the
Social Contract or the promises made in it.

For the record, I agree to the Social Contract and look forward to upholding
it as a developer at some point in the near future. I agree to not-hide
problems in Debian and to give back to the Free Software community as well.
It's why I'm writing this up to become a maintainer now! 

Thanks again for your time and your effort. I appreciate your help and all
you've done for me. I look forward to hearing from you again soon. When do
we move on to the next step? What is next? Procedure yes?

-- 
Mako Hill
mako@bork.hampshire.edu

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
> Now, I think the only outstanding thing is the procedures thing. AIUI,
> this is largly an informational thing. Is there any aspect of Debian
> proceedure you're unsure about?

I've read or looked through the Developers Reference, the Packaging Manual
and the New Maintainers' Guide. I've also gone through and familiarized
myself with the other policy documents so if I have any questions in the
future, I feel pretty confident that I'll know where to look or I'll know
where to ask.

But yes, I feel pretty confident about Debian procedure and I don't have any
questions right now.

Does that do it? If that's the last outstanding step, what happens next?
I've now the DAM's responsibility? 

Thanks again for everything. I really appreciate all your help and I'm
getting excited about wrapping this up!

-- 
Mako Hill
mako@bork.hampshire.edu

--- End Message ---

Attachment: mako.gpg
Description: Mako's GPG key

-- 
Rapun.sel - outermost outpost of the Pick Empire
http://www.pick.ucam.org
Reply to: