Re: There are _TWO_ discussions here

[Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>]

On Thu, 31 Jul 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:

> (How much time are you spending on this discussion? I feel like I explain
> everything over and over again but am presented with the same arguments
> all the time.)

Because you have not conviced us that your explaination is correct. I
could make the same statement. I make my points and you ignore them and
continue to discuss your points as though they were an answer to my
points. One of my problems with your position is that it is based on, what
I see as, false assumptions, several of which appear in this posting.

I will try, one more time to point these out.

> 
> I've listed the 6 packages in another mail from yesterday, I think. These
> packages are _not_ DFSG compliant, but may be in main according to our
> current definition. 

No non-compliant software may be in main!

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!

> > > > while providing protection from the legal implications of the
> > > > licenses of packages currently found in "non-free". 
> > > 
> > > I wouldn't call it `protection' if we encourage CD manufacturers to
> > > include contrib and have 11 packages in contrib now which have severe
> > > license `problems'. (That's 42 total packages, so 26%.) The problem is
> > > that `the average maintainer' does not know enough about licenses (or does
> > > not want to know enough :) to distinguish contrib from non-free.
> > 
> > Then we clearly need some legal help vetting software licenses. I don't
> > see a solution from "This is really confusing, lets lump all the confusing
> > stuff together".
> 
> I feel like you don't read our mails carefully enough :-(
> 
> The complete opposite is true. As Guy said in another mail here two days
> ago, we have a rather good definition for `free' (DFSG), but a rather bad
> explanation of which packages are `freely-distributable'. 

Well, I disagree with both of you on this point. I find it quite simple
to decide. You look for restrictive statements and see what they address.
If they address distribution then, most probably, there is some
distribution restriction on the software. That's all that needs to be
decided, not the character of the restriction, but simply the existance of
a distribution restriction.

While I agree that someone will still disagree with someone else as to
whether or not this is true, that is something that I can't fix ;-)

> 
> So I'm not suggesting to `lump all the confusing stuff together' but to
> sort the `confusing stuff' into `free' and `non-free' which is quite
> easy for the average maintainer. The rest is up to the CD manufacturers,
> since `freely-distributable' also varies from manufacturer to manufacturer

Which is exactly why any package that fits any manufacturer as a
restriction should be held seperately from all other non-free software
that has no such distribution restrictions.

> (I can ship most of non-free, for example, so these packages are also
> `freely-distributable').
> 
I only found 20 in non-free that I can distribute without permission from
the author. It didn't feel like "most" to me.

> > > And all CD manufacturers (as you and me) rely on their decision...
> > > 
Which is why we have a bug tracking system.

> > > > While I appreciate that merging the two would make archive maintainance
> > > > simpler, I don't think it will get more software on a CD.
> > > 
> > > We don't propose to "merge" contrib and non-free. We propose to make all
> > > contrib packages apply to the DFSG too. This will move only 6 packages
> > > from contrib to non-free--that's not much. But it will make life a lot
> > > easier for maintainers and a lot safer for CD manufacturers.
> > > 
> > It is still my position that DFSG compliant should equal "goes into main".
> > (This requires that you accept that the DFSG at least implies that
> > packages that depend on no-free software are themselves non-free)
> 
> The only way I see to implement this standpoint, is to "merge" contrib and
> non-free. Otherwise, we would have to specify the difference between
> contrib and non-free in more detail--which is against our goals.
> 
I don't see a goal conflict here. Communicating information to our users
that helps them use non-free packages effectively certainly falls within
our social contract.

> > > And according to Bruce' last message, this change will also allow
> > > "contrib" to go on the official CD image--which is currently not included
> > > because of the `license troubles'.
> > > 
> > I thought it was not included because it was not free software.
> 
> Yes, that's what I wanted to say. I think Bruce will only let DFSG
> compliant packages on the CD.
> 
> > > > I would rather see the DFSG expanded to speak to the issues of package 
> > > > dependence on non-free software and what the implications are for that 
> > > > dependence on the "freedoms" that can be associated with the dependent 
> > > > code.
> > > 
> > > Some people said that the way they interpret the DFSG, these dependency
> > > rules are already implied :-) 
> > > 

And therein lies the confusion. Making these issues explicit in the Guide
would reduce the confusion in this discussion and bring us to closure
faster on the "interpertation" issues.

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 .