Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Hello again everybody,


I did not have much time recently, so here is a summary email that tries to
answer in a single message all comments that I received in public or private.


1) About the exhaustive reproduction of all copyright notices.

I have the feeling that there is a consensus that we do not need to do what
laws and licenses are not commanding, but unless votes are counted with a GR,
this is only my feeeling and nothing else. I think that a GR is the right
instrument to check the consensus over big changes, and that the relaxation of
our policy of documenting all copyright notices is a big change. A GR that is
accepted by a large majority is not necessarly a waste of time, because it
dissipates misunderstantings that can arise with tacite agreements. But yes,
there are alternatives, like electing a DPL that supports this change in his
platform.

The proposition that I make is deliberatly not a Policy change. First of all,
it would introduce diffcult debates whether it can be edited later without
another GR. Second, I do not propose to replace the definition of
debian/copyright. In particular, this GR says nothing about other contents of
this file such as the URL to the sources. Rather, if accepted this GR would be
the green light for a Policy change.


2) About the source of the Debian system.

I would like to take the opportunity of this message to make a clarification on
what I wrote about ignoring the DFSG
(http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20100125010005.GF13715@kunpuu.plessy.org).

The DFSG are guidelines, and it is our social contract that tells us when to
follow them. We must not ignore them in these situations. What I am arguing is
that some files that are in the orig.tar files distributed in the source
packages of the Debian system are not part of the source of the system, and
that for them the DFSG do not apply. This is what I meant when I answered yes
to MJ Ray when he asked me if I proposed to ignore the DFSG. Similarly, I do
not think that it violates the title of the point one of our social contract
(“Debian will remain 100% free”). The Debian project maintains and distributes
non-free packages, so I conclude that the title – concise by nature – is about
the Debian system, and not about everything made by the Debian project.

Maybe it is because I am a biologist, but for me ‘Debian system’ means
something functional, something that one can run to operate a machine. Without
its sources, that system is not free. But the collection files distributed in
our source packages do not define what the Debian system is: some ‘convenience
copies’ of software libraries are ignored and we do not provide support for
them ; they are not part of the Debian system. Moreover the possession of only
the sources is not is enough for making and using a free system: one can not do
anything with an empty computer and the sources alone. For me, it is the
combination of the binary programs and their source that make a free operating
system and define its boundaries. If on the medium that contains the system's
sources there are other files that have no function in the system, then it is
my point of view that they are not part of it.


3) Is there a benefit of allowing non-free files to be distributed together
with the source of the Debian system ?

There are clear benefits. Firstly, would allow to use a bit-identical source
material as distributyed upstream. In the future, it would allow to distribute
source packages based on repository clones that contain freely redistributable
non-DFSG-free material, without having to engage in complex extirpations over
the entire repository's history (since we would still be distributing the files
after deleting them from the head). There is also a time benefit. Repacing a
package is less than one hour of work, but multiply it by many packages, and it
becomes a significant amount of time. Lastly, it is not fun, and having fun is
a very important motivation in volunteer work. Doing boring, repetitive and not
fun work leads people to make errors, which waste other people's time even is
they are as minor as forgetting to add a mangle rule to debian/watch in order
to take the ~dfsg suffix of the Debian upstream version. 


Here is a revised version of the GR proposal (still unsigned to underline that
it is still a draft), that I hope clarifies point 2)


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.

In order to distribute bit-identical source material as downlowaded from the
upstream distributors, 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. These
files are not part of the Debian system and in contrast with the non-free works
defined in the point 5 of our Social Contract, their use is not supported.


Motion C:

The general resolution “Simplification of license and copyright requirements
for the Debian packages.” is rejected and should not have been proposed.