Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
37 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan

I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
for resolving DFSG violations:

Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that:

When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
Debian.

(Since this option does not contradict SC #1, I believe it would only require
simple majority;  please correct me if I'm wrong)

Option 2 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the Social Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 3 (set an upper limit, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:

  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
  60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
  any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
  from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
  Debian.

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
      issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
      release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
      best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
      necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
      the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
      license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 4 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
      issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
      release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
      best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
      necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
      the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
      license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 5 (set an upper limit, allow lenny to release with DFSG violations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:

  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
  60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
  any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
  from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
  Debian.

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
      issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
      Etch release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
      best-effort process.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 6 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC, allow lenny to release with DFSG violations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
      issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
      Etch release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
      best-effort process.

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

martin f krafft
also sprach Robert Millan <[hidden email]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:

I would generally second this, but I wish we would separate the two
issues: first establish whether and how we want to deal with
DFSG-non-free, and second decide whether we want to make (yet
another) exception for lenny. In fact, I'd word it such that the
affirmative would mean we stick to our promise we made for sarge,
which we already violated for etch, and do *not* release lenny with
non-free stuff.

--
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <[hidden email]>
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
"you don't sew with a fork, so I see no reason
 to eat with knitting needles."
                               -- miss piggy, on eating chinese food

digital_signature_gpg.asc (204 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Thomas Viehmann
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
Hi,

I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
-----------
The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
send a box of chocolates to Ben.
-----------

I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time in that it adds
nothing but ineffective micromanaging for situation that is in violation
of the today's social contract while being ignorant of the how its
proposed solution should be implemented (currently packages move between
components by entering NEW on upload and then being accepted or
rejected, the proposal does not specify whose responsibility it is to do
the upload, I know of no attempt to upload linux-2.6 to non-free, so
really with the same set of actions and the new set of rules, the
situation would be 100% identical).
This failure and the lack of effort to actually resolve the situation
within the current framework make Robert's proposal indefensible.

Furthermore, I intend to ask the DPL to revoke my delegation to the ftp
team should Robert's proposal receive enough seconds to be voted on.[1]

Fianally, I would also like to ask the Secretary to clarify that
Robert's Option 1 does affect the Social Contract #1, in particular
  We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component.
when it requires moving to non-free packages from Debian such as the
Linux kernel that are (effectively) required for running Debian.

Kind regards

T.

1. For me, Debian is non-fun at the moment not because of the lack of
   great people but because of an excess of people that spoil my Debian
   experience. I am not quite ready to quit yet, but every day and every
   second on Robert's resolution help.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Ben Pfaff
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
Robert Millan <[hidden email]> writes:

> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> the Release Team for "stable").

I don't understand this part.  As a developer, how do I move a
package from one distribution to another?  I think that this
action has to actually be taken by an ftpmaster.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Julien BLACHE
In reply to this post by Thomas Viehmann
Thomas Viehmann <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> -----------
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> -----------

Seconded.

> I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time in that it adds

Doubly so.

JB.

--
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[hidden email]>
 
 Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169

attachment0 (194 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Moritz Mühlenhoff-2
Julien BLACHE wrote:
>> I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time in that it adds
>
> Doubly so.

AOL.

Cheers,
        Moritz


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Josselin Mouette
In reply to this post by Thomas Viehmann
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 18:40 +0200, Thomas Viehmann a écrit :
> -----------
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> -----------

Seconded.

This project needs more pastries.

--
 .''`.
: :' :      We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code.
`. `'       We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to
  `-        our own. Resistance is futile.

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Manoj Srivastava
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:

> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:

        I think that I would like to see an option to just release Lenny
 with an exception on the ballot, without any changes to the foundation
 documents or any other action:
,----[ Option 7 ]
|    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
|       community (Social Contract #4);
|
|    2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
|       issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
|
|    3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
|       made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
|       release in Lenny
|
|    4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
|       out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
|       best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
|       necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
|       the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
|       allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
|       license that complies with the DFSG.
|
| (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
`----
,----[ Option 8 ]
|    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
|       community (Social Contract #4);
|
|    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
|       non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
|       made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
|       version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
|       release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
|       operating system is complete.
`----

        I would like to see this incorporated into the current proposal,
 or failing that, seek seconds for this proposal in its own right. If
 these options are incorporated into the GR proposal, I shall second
 that, or else I am hereby proposing these options as independent
 amendments to fit on the ballot.

        manoj
--
Immortality consists largely of boredom. Zefrem Cochrane,
"Metamorphosis", stardate 3219.8
Manoj Srivastava <[hidden email]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Aurelien Jarno-2
In reply to this post by Thomas Viehmann
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> -----------
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> -----------
Seconded.

--
  .''`.  Aurelien Jarno            | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
 : :' :  Debian developer           | Electrical Engineer
 `. `'   [hidden email]         | [hidden email]
   `-    people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Jeff Carr-3
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for

By who? There is no standard.

> The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,

As you know, there are developers with such insane views on the DFSG
that all the packages in sid would instantly end up in non-free.

It seems to me this proposal would just allow idealogical zealots
additional methods of annoying technical contributing members. It
should never come to vote.

Sorry to be so harsh, it just seems like the 800th time this has been
talked about.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:22:14PM -0700, Jeff Carr wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 08:17, Robert Millan <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
>
> By who? There is no standard.

I don't think we need a standard to define things like "availability of source
code".  But do not trouble yourself, we haven't yet come to a situation in
which people claim a binary blob to be "source code".

> It seems to me this proposal would just allow idealogical zealots

I still don't know who are those zealots you keep talking about.  I'd
appreciate that if you have actual arguments you explain them, rather than
ressorting to this kind of cheap talk.

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan
In reply to this post by Manoj Srivastava
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:28:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> ,----[ Option 7 ]
> |    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> |       community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> |    2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
> |       issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;
> |
> |    3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
> |       made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
> |       release in Lenny
> |
> |    4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
> |       out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
> |       best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
> |       necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
> |       the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
> |       allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
> |       license that complies with the DFSG.
> |
> | (Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)
> `----

I'm fine with this.

> ,----[ Option 8 ]
> |    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
> |       community (Social Contract #4);
> |
> |    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
> |       non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
> |       made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
> |       version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
> |       release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
> |       operating system is complete.
> `----

I find this one to be deceitful.  First, because it's technically equivalent
to "further discussion".  Second, because the release team has already
expressed their intent to infringe the Social Contract, which in principle
is supposed to have more weight (backed by 3:1 majority) than a GR approved
by simple majority (like this option would require).  I see it as feasible
that they would infringe this text as well.

Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan
In reply to this post by martin f krafft
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:39:31PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Robert Millan <[hidden email]> [2008.10.24.1717 +0200]:
> > I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> > for resolving DFSG violations:
>
> I would generally second this, but I wish we would separate the two
> issues: first establish whether and how we want to deal with
> DFSG-non-free, and second decide whether we want to make (yet
> another) exception for lenny.

On one hand, I don't think an option that doesn't allow some kind of exception
for Lenny is likely to be accepted, taking into account that we're so close to
release (in fact I haven't made a clear decision myself).

On the other, if we implement the proposed mechanism for dealing with DFSG
violations, work will start in their enforcement, and at that point making
an exception would have to revert that to get DFSG-infringing packages back
to main.  It is much simpler that, for those who would support my proposed
reform but still want Lenny to be an exception, they have an option that
allows this exception and post-pones the reform at the same time.

> In fact, I'd word it such that the
> affirmative would mean we stick to our promise we made for sarge,
> which we already violated for etch, and do *not* release lenny with
> non-free stuff.

Manoj wrote an option along these lines (another reply in this thread).  I
have some concerns with that one, but I'm willing to incorporate it if after
reading my reply you're still interested in it (please have a look).

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan
In reply to this post by Ben Pfaff
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:41:53AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Robert Millan <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> > The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
> > moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
> > the Release Team for "stable").
>
> I don't understand this part.  As a developer, how do I move a
> package from one distribution to another?

By uploading a new version of the package.

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Steve McIntyre
In reply to this post by Thomas Viehmann
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
>-----------
>The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
>applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
>the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
>instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
>send a box of chocolates to Ben.
>-----------

I've made a point of telling people that I think Ben is about the only
one who deserves any praise for what's been happening on the kernel
front. I'll happily help to push beer/chocolate/$foo at him as a thank
you for that, regardless of any vote here.

>I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time

Seconded.

--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                [hidden email]
"You can't barbecue lettuce!" -- Ellie Crane


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Manoj Srivastava
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Robert Millan wrote:


>> ,----[ Option 8 ]
>> |    1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
>> |       community (Social Contract #4);
>> |
>> |    2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
>> |       non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
>> |       made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
>> |       version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
>> |       release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
>> |       operating system is complete.
>> `----
>
> I find this one to be deceitful.  First, because it's technically
> equivalent to "further discussion".  Second, because the release team
> has already expressed their intent to infringe the Social Contract,
> which in principle is supposed to have more weight (backed by 3:1
> majority) than a GR approved by simple majority (like this option
> would require).  I see it as feasible that they would infringe this
> text as well.

        I think this is different from frther discussion in that it is
 an recent and unequivocal expression of developer intent, expressly
 delaying Lenny until we get out act together. I do not  believe the
 RM's will ignore a GR.

> Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.

        If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on
 the ballot.

        manoj
--
The more control, the more that requires control.
Manoj Srivastava <[hidden email]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Kalle Kivimaa
In reply to this post by Thomas Viehmann
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thomas Viehmann <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> -----------
> The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> -----------

Seconded.

- --
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P)  *
*           PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer           *
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>

iEYEARECAAYFAkkCvKgACgkQdPhr0GcNBZ2qUQCgkZIthPQ1ISm50+YsQSATWgQ0
PwEAn0fX0pK+0FToaS/0NZFDlgUCKLhD
=HxB1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for seconds: Resolving DFSG violations

Joey Schulze
In reply to this post by Robert Millan
Robert Millan wrote:
>
> I hereby propose the following General Resolution to stablish a procedure
> for resolving DFSG violations:

I believe that the Debian project is way better off without this
General Resolution and with the rules and social contract as they are
to date.  Even worse, I have the strong feeling that the options
proposed will hurt the Debian project, delay lenny and future
releases.  It should not be voted on.

DFSG-nonfreeness is currently some sort of a grey zone which allows us
to release lenny at all.  We should all know (at least by know) that
we still have some skeletons in the closet and we all know that we
need to work on fixing these problems.  We should work on fixing these
problems with upstream instead of continueing this discussion.

Regards,

        Joey

--
Life is too short to run proprietary software.  -- Bdale Garbee


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposed amendment: Resolving DFSG violations

Robert Millan
In reply to this post by Steve McIntyre
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 02:46:47AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 06:40:14PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I propose to amend the Robert's resolution by adding the following choice
> >-----------
> >The Debian project, recognizing that bugs do not fix themselves,
> >applauds Ben Hutchings's efforts to remove non-DFSG-conformant bits from
> >the linux-2.6 package in a way that is still making users a priority. It
> >instructs the project leader to authorize spending of Debian funds to
> >send a box of chocolates to Ben.
> >-----------
>
> I've made a point of telling people that I think Ben is about the only
> one who deserves any praise for what's been happening on the kernel
> front. I'll happily help to push beer/chocolate/$foo at him as a thank
> you for that, regardless of any vote here.
>
> >I belive that Robert's resolution is a waste of time
>
> Seconded.

As a matter of fact, if you want to send chocolate to Ben I second that too.

I'd appreciate if you don't use a GR procedure for that, though, it makes us
look like a bunch of clowns.

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for seconds: Revised ballot

Robert Millan
In reply to this post by Manoj Srivastava
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:37:52PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Nevertheless I would merge it in my proposal if you still want me to.
>
>         If we must have a GR, I would feel better with these options on
>  the ballot.

Okay then.  Here's the new ballot including your proposed options.


Option 1 (set an upper limit)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that:

When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
Debian.

(Since this option does not contradict SC #1, I believe it would only require
simple majority;  please correct me if I'm wrong)

Option 2 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the Social Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 3 (set an upper limit, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:

  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
  60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
  any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
  from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
  Debian.

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
      issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
      release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
      best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
      necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
      the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
      license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 4 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC, allow lenny to release with propietary firmware)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
      issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
      release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
      best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
      necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
      the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
      license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 5 (set an upper limit, allow lenny to release with DFSG violations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that the following rule shall take effect inmediately
after Lenny is released:

  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the DFSG for
  60 days or more, and none of the solutions that have been implemented (if
  any) is considered suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved
  from Debian ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).

  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
  Debian.

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
      issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
      Etch release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
      best-effort process.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 6 (set an upper limit, make this part of the SC, allow lenny to release with DFSG violations)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The developers resolve that, inmediately after Lenny is released, the Social
Contract shall be ammended as follows:

--- social_contract.wml 22 Nov 2007 03:15:39 -0000 1.23
+++ social_contract.wml 24 Oct 2008 14:54:30 -0000
@@ -31,6 +31,24 @@ the free software community as the basis
   free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
   system require the use of a non-free component.
  </p>
+ <p>
+  In order to ensure continued compliance with this promise, the
+  following rule is to be followed:
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  When ever a package in Debian is found to have been violating the
+  Debian Free Software Guidelines</cite></q> for 60 days or more, and
+  none of the solutions that have been implemented (if any) is considered
+  suitable by the maintainers, the package must be moved from Debian
+  ("main" suite) to the Non-free repository ("non-free" suite).
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  The action of moving it may be performed by any of the developers (however,
+  moving packages in the "stable" distribution may still require approval by
+  the Release Team for "stable").  When this happens, any known DFSG violation
+  in the package must be resolved before the package can be moved back into
+  Debian.
+ </p>
       </li>
       <li><strong>We will give back to the free software community</strong>
  <p>

In addition:

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress on DFSG compliance
      issues; however, they are not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the packages distributed by Debian relative to the
      Etch release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat fixing of DFSG violations as a
      best-effort process.

(Since this option ammends the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 7 (exception for lenny, no reform)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. We acknowledge that there is a lot of progress in the kernel firmware
      issue; however, it is not yet finally sorted out;

   3. We assure the community that there will be no regressions in the progress
      made for freedom in the kernel distributed by Debian relative to the Etch
      release in Lenny

   4. We give priority to the timely release of Lenny over sorting every bit
      out; for this reason, we will treat removal of sourceless firmware as a
      best-effort process, and deliver firmware in udebs as long as it is
      necessary for installation (like all udebs), and firmware included in
      the kernel itself as part of Debian Lenny, as long as we are legally
      allowed to do so, and the firmware is distributed upstream under a
      license that complies with the DFSG.

(Since this option overrides the SC, I believe it would require 3:1 majority)


Option 8 (reaffirm the Social Contract)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   1. We affirm that our Priorities are our users and the free software
      community (Social Contract #4);

   2. Given that we have known for two previous releases that we have
      non-free bits in kernel sources, and a lot of progress has been
      made, and we are almost to the point where we can provide a free
      version of the Debian operating system, we will delay the
      release of Lenny until such point that the work to free the
      operating system is complete.

--
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
12