The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: There are _TWO_ discussions here

On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > If we change policy to make all contrib packages apply
> > > > to DFSG too, these packages will have to be moved to non-free (which is no
> > > > problem for me, since they are "non free", according to the DFSG).
> > > > 
> > > So are all the other packages in contrib!
> > 
> > The question is whether some software is `free' if its license applies to
> > the DFSG but the software depends on a `non-free' program. 
> > 
> > Currently, we say that the DFSG does _not_ include the `consistency rule'.
> > Thus, packages in main have to comply to 1. DFSG and 2. consistency rule
> > and this results in the fact, that `contrib' contains also some `free'
> > programs (i.e. DFSG compliant software) that depend on non-free packages,
> > though.
> >
> Here we are at the nitty gritty of our differences. The extablished policy
> makes it clear that the packages in contrib are not free. The DFSG doesn't
> make this clear. You view this as a problem with contrib, while I view it
> as a bug in the DFSG.

Partially correct. The problem is that the DFSG classifies
licenses/programs into `free' and `not free'. This has nothing to do with
our "distributions"--on the first hand. 

Thus, it doesn't really matter if the `consistency rule' is/should be
implied/included in the DFSG for our discussion here.

> Bruce, am I the only one who thinks that we need to modify the DFSG to
> explicitly declare these dependency criterion?
> 
> It has always been the case (before the DFSG) that packages that depend
> for their execution or construction on any non-free software can not
> appear in the distribution because they are not free. The distinction
> between contrib and non-free has always been based on distribution
> restrictions. The distinctions between contrib and main are on many
> fronts.
> 
> Recent interpretation of the DFSG has pointed up a naming confusion
> between these two directories.

Again: DFSG does not have a direct connection to our distributions! The
policy manual makes this connection by the rule, that every package in
"main" has to apply to the DFSG and to the consistency rule (if that one
is only implied in the DFSG this requirement can be removed). 

The real question is: do packages in "contrib" have to apply to the DFSG
(without the `consistency rule'--no matter if this is implied in the DFSG
or not) or not.

Current policy allows "non free" (according to the DFSG) packages in
"contrib". This has several disadvantages:

    - it's unclear which packages may go into contrib
    - Official CDs will _not_ contain contrib anymore
    - people think "pkg not DFSG compliant ==> has to go to non-free"
      (which is wrong)

Thus, I (and others) want to change policy.

Of course, renaming

    contrib  --> non-free-unrestricted-distribution
    non-free --> non-free-restricted-distribution

would make the third disadvantage obsolete, but the other two will remain. 

[snip]
> If we can admit that the DFSG is in error and Free Software must also be
> independent of non-free software, then the only thing left of the problem
> is the confusing names of the two directories.
> 
> I would propose the following to "fix" that problem:
> 
> /main			# The free portion know as "The Distribution"
> /non-free		# All non-free packages available on "this" archive
> /non-free/restricted	# The old definition for non-free
> /non-free/unrestricted	# What has been called contrib in the past
> 
> This is based on my conviction that we should make a distinction between
> distribution restrictions and other "missing freedoms" of non-free
> software.

Why should we make such a distinction? We should only seperate free from
non-free packages--contrib is for "free" packages but which depend on
non-free packages (of course, they are not "totally free"--but their code 
itself can be considered as "free").

[snip]
> > And why should we bother > 200 maintainers to check whether a package can
> > be distributed by all CD manufacturers if there are approx. 10 CD
> > manufactures (if at all--most of them simply distribute the official
> > images).
> 
> It isn't just CD manufacturers who are effected by distribution
> restrictions. Just as, making a copy of a piece of proprietary software
> for you friend violates that software's license, there can be non-free
> packages that restrict such activity as well. (I don't think anything in
> non-free is THAT restrictive, but I hope you see my point)

But this argument only affects "freely-distributable programs" that are
currently on "contrib" but do _not_ apply to the DFSG, of which there are
only six (6)!

> This isn't just about you and me. If Debian is to penetrate the
> "corporate" world we have to make it clear what areas have potential legal
> problems for those users as well as "Joe Enthusiast", or they risk legal
> action through ignorance.

Exactly. That's why we want to make the "free<->non-free" distinction more
clearly. Everything in "contrib" can be distributed without problems if
all packages in contrib apply to the DFSG, even if these packages are not
`totally free', since they depend on non-free packages.

Note, that this is a compromise. We could also merge "non-free" and
"contrib". This would make policy even more simplier--but this would be a
punishment for programs that are "free" (DFSG) but depend on non-free
stuff.

[snip]
> > I'm starting to write pro and cons about my suggestion to make all contrib
> > packages apply to the DFSG. Can you please tell me (once again) why you
> > have a problem with this? (Currently, I don't see a single good argument
> > against this proposal. So it's better you summarize your standpoint than
> > if I would try to do it.)
> 
> Because it mixes the ideas of non-free and non-distributable in an
> inappropriate fashion.

Sorry, but I still don't see the advantage of seperating
"non-free-but-distributable" from "non-distributable" if this only
affects 6 packages but makes things a lot more complicated.


Thanks,

Chris

--                 Christian Schwarz
Do you know         schwarz@monet.m.isar.de, schwarz@schwarz-online.com,
Debian GNU/Linux?    schwarz@debian.org, schwarz@mathematik.tu-muenchen.de
      
Visit                  PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org   http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .