On Wed, Aug 19, 1998 at 09:31:44AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Joseph> No, we can all agree that Free Software is important. It > Joseph> seems like a very good split as to whether or not every > Joseph> collection of words included on the CD (licenses, standards > Joseph> documents, lg) or else they can't be accepted into main. > > There were sme fairly strong objections to putting them in > main. And I don't think that contrib or non-free are justified > either. I'd say non-free is the place for them, actually. The reason it's not is because you want to distribute them on CD, non-free or not. If it's non-free enough that main or contrib isn't right, non-free is the place. Verbatim seems to be a compromise on that principle to allow distribution of non-free docs. If it doesn't matter that they're non-free for the purposes of distribution as part of Debian, then why does it matter if they're in main? Is there a reason FSSTND needs to be on the Debian CD? PGP isn't and that's just as required by developers. Does this make any sense? > Umm. I think there have been enough examples already to > populate the dists/slink/verbatim/binary-all, to an extent. Since Apt > can already take multiple archives, I don't see size as a big issue > -- if it needs be done, it needs be done. Why make a technical policy exception for a bunch of non-free things, software or not? > Are we now using convenience to militate against doing the > right thing? If we decide that verbatim is the right thing to do, we > should not let (minor) inconvenience stand in our way. Convenience has nothing to do with it for me (I do use apt myself after all) > Joseph> ISSUE: What should be done with packages which happen to > Joseph> include some content which is software and some content which > Joseph> is documentation. The software is free because it's software > Joseph> and the documentation is "submit any changes you'd like > Joseph> upstream but don't distrubute modded versions" to protect the > Joseph> integrity of the document. Then what? Are you going to tear > Joseph> apart a package in main that shouldn't be torn apart just to > Joseph> put the document portion in a verbatim dist? Tearing apart > Joseph> such a package might not be technically sound and would be > Joseph> giving others free ammunition to use against Debian and free > Joseph> software in general. > > We have already agred that documentation of the software > should be considered a part of the software and have the same > license. Whether or not one tears apart packages has yet to be > decided; I think no one actually proposed tearing them up. Some > wiggle room remains in our stance. So perl is non-free because there's a non-free document included with it? Whoa, that would be messy. Perl is probably the most used piece of free software there is! You want to say it's not free enough for Debian because of a document that you can't change? This is probably the only case of this can think of where splitting the package would be acceptable, but I still believe it is undesirable from a technical standpoint. If you did split it, the FAQ should go in non-free because that's what it is. Calling it just "verbatim" so it can be on the main CDs seems like a bad idea to me. > Joseph> Does policy even allow recommends on packages in main to > Joseph> packages outside main? I would argue that in my above > Joseph> example suggests may not be suitable. > > Policy is not a moribund document set in stone. And this is > not a reason not to do verbatim; if we create a verbatim > distribution, policy can be changed to say that the packages in > Debian (main,verbatim) should not depend on packages not in Debian > (main,verbatim). > > This is not a big deal. We could do it. I don't think we should though. > Joseph> ISSUE: People talking about putting licenses in this verbatim > Joseph> dist should Stop Right Now. > > ;-). This is really convincing. > > Joseph> We can't legally do that in many cases and we should not be > Joseph> doing it at all! > > The latter is still moot. The former is not. If we must provide a copy of the license with the program (which I interpret as with the .deb and believe we shouldn't assume we can get away with it even with the GPL--at least symlink to it! I don't want to get sued because a package I maintain doesn't include a license!) then I wouldn't want to call it non-free because the license can't be in a seperate archive. > Joseph> Besides, I have already pointed out that because of what a > Joseph> license is, it CAN be modified with or without permission and > Joseph> applied to another product. > > Really? One can take a copyrighted docuemnt, and modify and > distribute it at will? I, and the laws of the united states, beg to > differ. There are massive portions of software licenses in the commercial world. Read them, they all say the same things and usually in the same words and have the same warranty (none) in the same words. I don't believe licenses apply becase it's not itself a document, just a statement of permission. Let me put it this way... Where in the BSD license is there permission to distribute the BSD license? The GPL? Artistic? But you can distribute them because they're part of the software that you're distributing and are therefore covered by the license. Is the BSD license then under the BSD license? The GPL under the GPL? I can't answer that for certainty, ask a copyright lawyer because they're the only ones who can say for sure. > Joseph> Take the BSD license, we have seen 2, 3, and 4 clause > Joseph> versions. The 4 clause version is of course the actual BSD > Joseph> license, but the 2 and 3 clause versions are used because > Joseph> people don't like that 4th clause and don't want it to apply > Joseph> to their software. The BSD license grants no permission to > Joseph> do this. If it were copyright violation to change this > Joseph> license, then ANY package under a "BSD style" license which > Joseph> isn't the full advertising clause version of the BSD license > Joseph> would not be able to be part of Debian. Think about that and > Joseph> how much software you would be removing. How does that > Joseph> affect PR? > > I think that you have indeed pointed out illegal > modifications. How many packages arte guilty of this? Breaking the > law is not great PR either. And we did the right thing, and did not > bow to PR, over the pine issue. Why start now? with the execption of sirc (which has the perl issue above), every console based irc client for example. And xbase Copyright file contains 3 of the 4 BSD clauses directly copied. So is X licensed illegally? You want to take X out of Debian for it or something? Tell me that's a good idea, go ahead, I dare ya. => (not that I'd miss X personally all that much, but I'd sure miss epic..) Before we run out and pull X (and everything else) I really think a copyright lawyer should be consulted. Not doing so would be committing suicide as a distribution. > Joseph> See above. There are at least two very good reasons why this > Joseph> is a bad idea. Technical, > > I think I disagree that this is technically a bad idea. As I > said, policvy can be changed if we so decide.Adding a verbatim along > with main is fairly trivial; especially with Apt. I still think it's making a very big mess out of things. > Joseph> legal, > > I think you are misinformed, or being parochial. Licenses > can't be modified at will in the united states (where our main > distribution resides); there is no requirement that is not satisfied > by having the licenses on a) every debian box; b) every CD, and c) on > every archive of Debian. What other legal objections do you see? I have seen licenses that MUST be in the archive with the software. And I'd argue that we'd be on legal thin ice to not have the license in the packages. FWIW, other things (lg for example) probably don't belong in main. Licenses IMO do belong with the software they cover. > Joseph> and political. > > This is the worst of the lot. You are arguing that we should > not do what is right, merely on the basis of politics. What's next, > bring pine back in because of politics? Start introducing packages > back in main because of politics? There are other ways to do what is right without doing it in a way that makes us look bad. Those clowns pulling the LSA stunt have hurt us enough for the moment. Pine is supported in Debian as much as is reasonably possible considering the legal problems. Not a policy problem, but a legal problem. > Joseph> Not to mention the common sense argument that creating > Joseph> slink/verbatim for just the tiniest handful of packages and > Joseph> saying from then on that we will happily allow and distribute > Joseph> non-free docs if they're in that section is probably a bad > Joseph> idea. > > You really have not being paying attention. No one ever said > that non-free or non-mutable documentation goes in verbatim. Please > read what the proposal is before objecting to things. > > Again, this tiniest handful argument is really not relevant, > if it is the right thing to do. I don't think this is the right solution. I don't think leaving it as-is works either. > Joseph> And creating a main/verbatim section would leave them > Joseph> in main anyway, resulting in absolutely no change other than > Joseph> making a big deal over something we cannot realistically > Joseph> affect at this time. > > That is a good argument against a main/verbatim section. Yeah, look what a mess is coming out of trying to do something out of it.. It's REALLY gonna suck if X is licensed illegally because it includes 3 of the 4 clauses from the BSD license.
Attachment:
pgpfqDQ4XZLNE.pgp
Description: PGP signature