Re: next approach: new non-free/contrib policy

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 27 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > Hi folks!
> > > 
> > > I think (at least I hope :-) we have a consensus about this policy now:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1. main
> > > =======
> > > 
> > > Every package in main has to apply to the DFSG and may not declare
> > > a Depends or Recommends relation to a package outside of main.
> > > 
> > > [Changes: - No exceptions are allowed for "Recommends" relations.]
> > 
> > This wording means that I only need to remove the declaration to get the
> > package into the main distribution. It should be more clear that the
> > package can not depend on packages outside of main even if those
> > dependencies are undeclaired.
> 
> Note, that this text was just written to summarize this discussion--I'll
> change the wording completely if I include this in the policy manual. (As
> always, the changed policy will be presented to public _before_ its
> released.)

Just make it clear that it is the "actual" dependency on non-free packages
that causes the exclusion, not simply the declared ones.

> 
> > > 2. non-us
> > > =========
> > > 
> > > Packages which are export-restricted in the US have to go to into the 
> > > `non-us' distribution. 
> > > 
> > > The non-us distribution is considered as part of "Debian GNU/Linux" and
> > > will thus be split into
> > > 
> > >      non-us/main
> > >      non-us/non-free
> > > 
> > This is all quite redundant. None-us == non-free since those packages in
> > the non-us catagory are there because of "distribution restrictions". This
> > is the definition of non-free.
> 
> Please red it more carefully. It says `export-restriced'. The wording is
> very clear, IMHO.

As I understand the meaning of "export-restricted" this is a distribution
restriction. If it is distribution restricted, the package goes in
non-free. In this case it can only do so on an ftp archive outside the US.

> 
> > > to simplify task for CD-ROM vendors. However, packages in "main" (that is,
> > > "main" on master.debian.org, not `non-us/main') will still not be allowed
> > > to depend on `non-us/main' packages. If this case happens, the packages
> > > will have to be moved either to `contrib' or `non-us/main'. 
> > > 
> > Any CD vendor who ships either into or out of the US can't include any of
> > this stuff. It's all non-free by fiat of US law.
> 
> Huh? I _am_ a CD vendor and I can ship non-us/main ("free") without
> problems, even if the customer is in the US.

But if you ship outside the US, or reside outside the US and ship into the
US you leave yourself open for prosecution under those export laws.

> 
> > > (Note, that there will not be a "non-us/contrib" directory since non-us
> > > is too small for that.)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 3. contrib
> > > ==========
> > > 
> > > Every package in contrib has to apply to the DFSG.
> > > 
> > Then it should qualify for the main distribution.
> 
> No. main = DFSG+consistency rule (see above).

I understood the consistancy rule to be implied by the DFSG. I would also
say that if it isn't then it should be explicitly declared in the
Guidelines. A package that depends on another package that is non-free is
intimately associated with that non-free package and thus takes on, by
association, the non-free character of the associated package.

> 
> > My understanding of contrib, (and I have seen no arguments that change my
> > thinking) is that packages in contrib are there because they have no
> > distribution restrictions, but fail to qualify for other reasons. Most
> > predominant of these are:
> > 
> > 	Dependence on non-free or contrib packages.
> > 
> > 	Unavailability of source code.
> > 
> > 	Dependence on packages that can't be provided on Debian sites.
> > 
> > 	Any other particular of the DFSG that is not met by the package.
> 
> Please don't start this discussion again if you don't have good arguments
> for it. This has been discussed at length already and if there no major
> objections (there have not been any presented to me for the last week) the
> new policy will be that ``every package in contrib will fully apply to the
> DFSG''. This is necessary that `non-free' really means
> `not-dfsg-compliant'.

Although I have been away for a week, I maintained my subscription to
debian-private and have read all of the discussion on this subject. I saw
nothing in the discussion to change my mind and I am strongly opposed to
this "merging" of contrib and non-free. Both of these sections are
"non-free" but the distinction of interest to me is that contrib can be
"freely distributed" while non-free can not. This means that I can include
contrib on a CD without having to look over every packages copyright to
see if it is ok to do so. This puts more packages on a CD without extra
work on the part of the CD manufacturer. If you merge them, then I will
just have to leave it all off the CD.

> 
> (Please check out the last mails and don't start the discussion again.)
> 
> > > This implies, availability of source code, for example.
> > > 
> > > For example, the following packages will go into contrib:
> > > 
> > >     - "free" wrapper packages (netscape-installer, staroffice, etc.)
> > >     - packages which are "free" but depend on other packages outside of
> > >       `main'
> > >     - packages which fail other policy requirements (but are free)
> > >     - packages which we don't want to have in main (but are free)
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 4. non-free
> > > ===========
> > > 
> > > Every package in non-free must be freely distributable via our ftp server
> > > and its mirrors in form of a `.deb' binary package.
> > > 
> > All packages without explicit copyright statements, residing in non-free
> > at the moment, will get booted out completely.
> > 
> > Several others will be open for interpretation.
> > 
> > As the prime definition of non-free is "has distribution restrictions" the
> > above definition is contradictory.
> 
> I don't see your arguments. 

Look harder.

Do you just want to be against this proposal
> or do you have any real arguments?
> 
> Current policy is _very_ clear that packages without a copyright/license
> statement or with "unclear" wordings ``may not be included in the archive
> at all'', not even in non-free. And this will _not_ be changed. 
> 
This may be clear to you, but my point is that this policy will eliminate
packages that are currently in the non-free section.

> > > In addition to these changes, I plan the following policy
> > > "clarification":
> > > 
> > >    - /usr/doc/<pkg>/copyright has to contain the full copyright notice and
> > >      the full license. If the license is GPL, LGPL, Aritistic, or BSD, the
> > >      license _may not_ be included in the copyright file, but there has to
> > >      be a reference to the license file in /usr/doc/copyright/
> > > 
> > I can only assume that this is in another section of the Policy Manual,
> > not related to non-us/non-free/contrib.
> 
> Yes, I said `in addition ... the following policy...'. This has also been
> discussed in the last emails here: we want to extract the "copyright" file
> automatically on master for several purposes. This makes it necessary,
> that the "copyright" file explicitely contains the _full_ copyright and
> license statement. This is already police, but some people did not know
> this and thus I'll try to "clarify" it.

Works for me.
> 
> > The issue of demanding that every package (including non-free ones)
> > deliver a /usr/doc/<pkg>/copyright file, will make several no-free
> > packages non-existant, because they can not provide such a file.
> 
> If a package cannot provide that file, it can't be included in the
> archive. I don't know why this isn't clear to you already. This has been
> included in the policy manual since the manual exists (at least, since I
> joined the project over a year ago).
> 
I just went and looked at the non-free packages that I knew didn't have a
copyright in the past. It looks like they all have a copyright statement
now, so my point is no longer valid.

It should be pointed out, however, that any package that contains no
copyright is considered, under copyright law, to be under the most
restrictive copyright available.

Luck,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-                                          _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
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 .