Bug#65577: PROPOSED] README.Debian should include notice if a package is not a part of Debian distribution
Thanks to your consideration on this proposal, and sorry to be late
in answering.
In <[🔎] 878zwa1b1b.fsf@ariel.mindspring.com>,
at "13 Jun 2000 00:04:48 -0400",
Brian Mays <bem5r@virginia.edu> writes:
> sano@debian.org (Taketoshi Sano) writes:
>
> > With this consideration, I propose the modification of our policy below.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > 2. The Debian Archive
> > ---------------------
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > In order to avoid to be misconstrued, All the packages
> > in the other sections than _main_ should have notice in
> > `/usr/share/doc/<package>/README.Debian' and should explain
> > the specific reason why the package does not form the _Debian
> > GNU/Linux distribution_.
>
> I have two comments:
>
> (1) While some cases may be clear cut, in other situations, this could
> be a real "pain in the ass." By "specific reason," what exactly do
> you mean should be documented? Some packages fail to comply with
> the DFSG in more than one way. Do you want to document *all* of the
> reasons why the package fails to comply? Or is it sufficient to
> list *one* reason why it doesn't comply, and leave it at that?
Well, what I wish to target with this proposal, is "let our users
know more about the packages which they use".
The reason why a package can not enter into the "main" section of
our archive, may vary with each package. The packages in contrib
should have DFSG compatible license. So "the specific reason" is
not limited to analysis on their license.
Current policy (for potato) shows:
Every package in "contrib" must comply with the DFSG.
Examples of packages which would be included in "contrib" are
* free packages which require "contrib", "non-free", or "non-US"
packages or packages which are not in our archive at all for
compilation or execution,
* wrapper packages or other sorts of free accessories for non-free
programs,
(Ah, maybe the last comma "," in the potato version should be changed
into a period ".", isn't it ?)
So it is enough to show the name of the software or other materials which:
is required to build or to use the package,
is not available from the main section of our archive,
i.e. the official Debian distribution.
in order to show "the specific reason why a apackage is in contrib",
I think.
And for "non-free" section, current policy shows:
`Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG or
which are encumbered by patents or other legal issues that make their
distribution problematic.
Here we need the explanation of the license for users.
In the new "New-Maintainer" process, the applicants is expected to be
able to "determine whether any given license fits the criterion (DFSG)"
(http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step3).
And I think the maintainer of a non-free package should be able to
explain for users why the license conflicts with our DFSG.
If a package fail to comply with the DFSG in more than one way,
then I wish to know that fact. Just the corresponding list of
the specific part of the license and the term of our DFSG it
conflicts, is enough for me.
If the list is too huge, then simply point out several conflicts,
and say "There are many other conflicts between the license and
our DFSG". It may inform users that how much the license differs
from our DFSG.
> Furthermore, how much detail is required? Is it sufficient to list
> which sections of the DFSG the licence does not agree with, or are
> the package maintainers required to include more detail as to *why*
> the package fails each of these sections?
If the package maintainers wish to explain *why*, then I would not
object it at all. I myself think that a list which shows the conflicting
part of the license and our DFSG, may be enough. In some cases, the list
should show the absence of the permission for the specific action in the
license or copyright information of the software.
Now there rarely are hints for this information in the current package,
and it does not guide our users to consideration on the licenses.
I wish to change the state, and make our non-free packages to be
the tactics to promote our DFSG (just for identification of ourselves,
not for hostility to the non-free softwares).
> (2) Assuming that we agree how to handle the previous point, I don't
> think that README.Debian is the appropriate place for this
> information. IIRC, Debian policy does not yet cover a
> README.Debian file, so why should we introduce one now? I
> think that this information is better placed as a part of
> /usr/share/doc/<pkg>/copyright. This has two advantages: it doesn't
> introduce a new file, and the package's licence is available in the
> same file for inspection by the user.
The current policy states:
6.6. Copyright information
--------------------------
(clip)
Do not use the copyright file as a general `README' file. If your
package has such a file it should be installed in
`/usr/share/doc/<package>/README' or `README.Debian' or some other
appropriate place.
and I intend to say "All packages which is not in main, should
explain the specific reason why the package is not in main".
This means that the reason is not limited to license condition nor
dependency, because "all package which is not in main" include the
packages in experimental. (Some of them are allowed to be registered
in contrib, according to the older version of our policy.)
And, the reason for contrib packages are not related to their license,
because all packages in contrib should have DFSG-compatible licenses.
So I think to use README.Debian is appropriate.
Regards.
--
Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
Reply to: