Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Dear all,
a significant part of the time dedicated to make and update Debian packages is
spent in making an exhaustive inventory of the copyright attributions of the
distributed work, and to clean the upstream original sources from files that
have no impact on the binary packages we distribute. After a couple of years
spent as a Debian developer, my personal conclusion that this time could be
better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these
practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose
to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus.
1) The copyright attributions.
The inventory of copyright notices that we distribute together with our
packages is checked at the first upload only. At this step already, some
packages with incomplete lists are accepted. For other packages, new copyright
notices added upstream during updates are missed and the Debian copyright file
is not updated. As a result, for the purpose of having an exhaustive listing of
all the copyright notices present in the Debian source packages, the
debian/copyright files are not a reliable source of information.
I do not think that we have the manpower, nor perhaps the will, to do this
inventory with the same aim of perfection as we have for other matters like
security or stability for instance. Since not all license require to reproduce
the copyright notices in the documentation of our binary packages, I propose to
give up this self-imposed requirement, and simply focus on respecting the
licenses.
I have considered whether doing so would increase the work load of our archive
administrators. I have some experience of NEW package inspection
(http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview). In my experience, the
debian/copyright file is not an aid to the reviewing task, since the very goal
of this task is to check if nothing has been omitted or incorrectly copied. The
license of the redistributed files have to be inspected anyway, and at this
moment it is usually clear whether the license has some clauses about the
reproduction of copyright notices.
2) The non-free files that we remove from the upstream sources.
Some upstream archives contain files that are not free according to the DFSG,
but that can be omitted without affecting the programs distributed in our
binary packages. Typical examples include non-free RFCs, sourceless PDFs, GFDL
documentation, copies of scientific articles licensed with a clause prohibiting
commercial use, or builds of the program for MS-Windows.
Repacking the upstream sources to remove such non-free files does not provide
any additional freedom. Among the disadvantages of repacking, there is the work
overhead for the packager, and the loss of transparency for our users as we do
not distribute a bit-wise identical source archive as upstream anymore. Among
the advantages, our users know that if they download our source packages, there
is non-DFSG-free file in.
I think that this advantage is not as big as we think. Since we allow licenses
with an advertisement clause and licenses that forbid to reuse the same program
name for derived works, our users have to check the license of our packages in
any case and can not blindly redistribute modified versions without checking
for the above two points. So the presence of legally redistributable files that
do not satisfy the DFSG in our source package would not change our user
experience, especially that the target is files that can be ignored. Most
importantly, none of these files would be distributed in binary packages
anyway.
According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all
its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this
is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we
distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain
non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can
be said that they are not part of the Debian system. Therefore, despite what I
propose is a big change from our traditions, I do not think that it is a change
that contradicts our foundation documents.
Draft of the GR
---------------
I propose three motions that can be seconded separately. The first implements
the point 1), the second points 1) and 2). Given that point 2) is likely to be
far more controversial than 1), I do not think that there is a need for a
motion that addresses 2) but not 1). Lastly, remembering the bitter experience
of the two GRs of 2008, I propose a third amendment to strongly reject the GR
and blame for having submitted it, in case I strongly misunderstood the
situation and harmed the project with this GR. Also, it allows the ‘further
discussion’ default option to really mean that more discussion is needed.
Have a nice day,
-- Charles Plessy, Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan
General resolution: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Motion A:
The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the
files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright
notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but
not necessary.
Motion B:
The Debian binary packages contain an exhaustive summary of the licenses of the
files it contains. This summary also contains a reproduction of the copyright
notices when the license require it. Additional documentation is encouraged but
not necessary.
The Debian source packages can contain files that are not free according to our
guidelines, provided that they are not used to build nor distributed in the
binary packages that constitute the Debian system.
Motion C:
The general resolution “Simplification of license and copyright requirements
for the Debian packages.” is rejected and should not have been proposed.
Reply to: