Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

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

Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Mo Zhou
Hi fellow devs,

I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.

I poked ftp-master about this problem:

  <lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why can
  the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be DFSG-nonfree?

And I got the following explanations:

  <spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT.  Otherwise I
  would have PRODded.

  <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
  modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it was
  generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
  it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
  where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.

The pictures we're talking about are:

  * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
  * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg

  "alipay" and "wechat" are the top-2 domination payment platforms in Chinese
  market. And the two QR code pictures are generated from the corresponding
  APPs by the upstream author. The whole software project is licensed under
  GPL-3 and the QR codes are used for receiving donations.

  Why are they non-free?

Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.

  1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
     I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.

  2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
     There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.

  3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the package
     build process.
     "Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the hashsum
      mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be evil?"
     I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not byte-to-byte
     equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.

Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free? Is DFSG over-interpreted in
this case? How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?

[1] The package has been REJECT'ed for two reasons:
    1. "doc/*_donate.jpg are probably not DFSG-free"
    2. Missing copyright information for "package/luci-compat/tool/po2lmo/src/*"
    There is no problem with the second point. This mail only talks about the first point.

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
Hello Mo,

Le lundi, 30 mars 2020, 07.54:23 h CEST Mo Zhou a écrit :

> I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
> the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code
> pictures used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not
> satisfied with the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on
> DFSG.
>
> I poked ftp-master about this problem:
>
>   <lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why
> can the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be
> DFSG-nonfree?
>
> And I got the following explanations:
>
>   <spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT.
> Otherwise I would have PRODded.
>
>   <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
>   modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it
> was generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in
> Debian, then it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification
> is one area where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.
>
> The pictures we're talking about are (…)
>
>   Why are they non-free?
They are non-free, because they cannot be rebuilt from their preferred form of
modification.

> Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.
>
>   1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
>      I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.

It's allowed by GPL-3 licensing. Actually, we (Debian) require that this must
be possible. But you can't be coerced into doing this (you can always opt to
"not package for Debian").

>   2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
>      There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.
>
>   3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the
>      package build process.
>      "Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the
> hashsum mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be
> evil?" I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not
> byte-to-byte equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.

We're _building_ source code towards binary artifacts all the time. Doing this
(and being trusted to be doing it correctly) is one of the defining
characteristics of being a "shipping-binaries" Linux distribution. The whole
point of this exercise is that our build processes are auditable, and that
eventual forgeries can be found, reported, and fixed.

If you don't consider the result of your builds trustworthy, "we have a
problem".

> Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free?

QR codes are artifacts in binary form, not in their preferred form of
modification.  By function, QR codes are vehicles of binary information, and
can be easily reconstructed from said binary information without loss (of
information).

Frankly, simple lines like the following in debian/rules would do it:

  echo "http://donation-url.example.com/?vendor-id" | qrencode -o qr.png

> Is DFSG over-interpreted in this case?

IANAFM, but I don't think so.

> How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?

Asking package maintainers to rebuild functionally-equivalent QR-codes during
the build-process seems entirely reasonable to me.

--
    OdyX

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:54 AM Mo Zhou wrote:

>   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
>   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg

In addition to the QR codes, these both contain images of what look
like television or game characters, which I assume are non-free in
their own right.

If it weren't for the TV/game characters it would be pretty trivial to
build these images from scratch, just pass this data to your favourite
QR code generator:

$ zbarimg alipay_donate.jpg
QR-Code:HTTPS://QR.ALIPAY.COM/FKX04578CLNPKSW9W28R97
scanned 1 barcode symbols from 1 images in 0.02 seconds

$ zbarimg wechat_donate.jpg
QR-Code:wxp://f2f0MsJfRxpVxhbSnb7gkVkiPw7EhfUQ8P_I
scanned 1 barcode symbols from 1 images in 0.02 seconds

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Shengjing Zhu-3
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:54 PM Mo Zhou <[hidden email]> wrote:
>   <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
>   modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it was
>   generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
>   it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
>   where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.

IMO, the QR picture is preferred form of modification as well as the
origin text.
1. There's no info loss if you convert from one to another.
2. I consider a base64 string of a non-readable ascii character a
preferred format than the origin character.
3. In this case, the origin url(especially the wechat url is
non-readable) is not supporsed to modify. If I want to modify, I just
replace the whole image.

Then, the question is that the picture is generated by a program not in Debian.
But, these pictures are in the documents, not in the program, thus not
affect the program's functions.
And, I consider this situation just like I use an MS word to produce a
.docx file and place it in my source tree.
And I don't think I need to strip this docx file if I want to package
it in Debian.

--
Shengjing Zhu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Samuel Thibault-8
Shengjing Zhu, le lun. 30 mars 2020 15:53:18 +0800, a ecrit:
> IMO, the QR picture is preferred form of modification as well as the
> origin text.

Is there a program which takes a QR code, allows to modify the URL and
the picture in the middle, and write the new QR code with the picture?

> And, I consider this situation just like I use an MS word to produce a
> .docx file and place it in my source tree.

It's not the same situation: the .docx file is the preferred form of
modification, you can trivially open it with libreoffice and update
it. One can't say the same of the QR code (and also the question of the
legal status of the picture in the middle of the QR code)

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Andrey Rahmatullin-3
In reply to this post by Shengjing Zhu-3
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 03:53:18PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> But, these pictures are in the documents, not in the program
We apply the same standards to both.

--
WBR, wRAR

signature.asc (911 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Raphael Hertzog-3
In reply to this post by Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
Hi,

On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
>
> Asking package maintainers to rebuild functionally-equivalent QR-codes during
> the build-process seems entirely reasonable to me.

To me it looks like wasting my time. There are many pictures that are
not the preferred form of modification but we accept them as is when
there's no proof/evidence that some other source exist.

And here there's no other source really, the source is the string
associated to the QR code. QR code and the string are two different
representation of the same underlying data.

I don't see what it buys us to regenerate the picture during the build
process. Yes you gain the ability to change it, but changing it is not
really nice to the upstream developer (and changing the picture is as easy
as changing the source URL in debian/rules). And on the opposite, if upstream
changes the link, the you break it without noticing (unless you put even
more code to first extract the link from the picture and then re-encode
it).

Cheers,
--
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀   Raphaël Hertzog <[hidden email]>
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋    The Debian Handbook: https://debian-handbook.info/get/
  ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀   Debian Long Term Support: https://deb.li/LTS

signature.asc (535 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Paul Wise via nm
In reply to this post by Shengjing Zhu-3
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:53 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote:

> 1. There's no info loss if you convert from one to another.

You definitely lose the (presumably non-free) television/game
characters when converting from the original QR codes to plain text.

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

"Yao Wei (魏銘廷)"-2
In reply to this post by Raphael Hertzog-3
This case, in my interpretation, the text from the QR code is not upstream author's preferred form of modification.

The QR code probably is author's preferred form of modification by changing the payment QR code as a whole.

Ethics wise, we could ask author if they can accept other payment method than QR code form, while I can understand the extreme popularity in Mainland China.

Yao Wei
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Samuel Thibault-8
In reply to this post by Raphael Hertzog-3
Raphael Hertzog, le lun. 30 mars 2020 10:14:13 +0200, a ecrit:
> And on the opposite, if upstream changes the link, the you break it
> without noticing

Agreed, indeed.

> (unless you put even more code to first extract the link from the
> picture and then re-encode it).

Actually that would argue in favor of doing it, precisely to make sure
that it is still the donation URL, and not a faked one that would go
unnoticed if the URL only shows up as QR code.

I would agree to keep the upstram picture it was really the preferred
form of modification, but it really is not here: I can't check/fix the
URL by just looking at the picture.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Johannes Schauer-3
In reply to this post by Paul Wise via nm
Hi,

Quoting Paul Wise (2020-03-30 10:20:08)
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:53 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > 1. There's no info loss if you convert from one to another.
> You definitely lose the (presumably non-free) television/game characters when
> converting from the original QR codes to plain text.

I think this point is important: are these pictures in the center DFSG free or
not?

lumin, could you answer that question?

Thanks!

cheers, josch

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Shengjing Zhu-3
In reply to this post by Paul Wise via nm
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:20 PM Paul Wise <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:53 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote:
>
> > 1. There's no info loss if you convert from one to another.
>
> You definitely lose the (presumably non-free) television/game
> characters when converting from the original QR codes to plain text.
>

It's my intention that not cover this part. If the picture in the
middle is the reason that makes this QR picture non-free, then I
agree. But if the reason is the form of picture or not, then I don't
agree.

--
Shengjing Zhu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
Hi fellow devs,

I acknowlege that I sometimes do things in inappropriate ways
unintentionally, and I accept the consequences of my fault.  And this
time I did something unprofessional, leaking messages from -private
without asking for permission first.

I was wrong. Sorry for that.

Mo.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:54:23AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:

> Hi fellow devs,
>
> I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
> the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
> used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
> the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.
>
> I poked ftp-master about this problem:
>
>   <lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why can
>   the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be DFSG-nonfree?
>
> And I got the following explanations:
>
>   <spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT.  Otherwise I
>   would have PRODded.
>
>   <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
>   modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it was
>   generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
>   it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
>   where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.
>
> The pictures we're talking about are:
>
>   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
>   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg
>
>   "alipay" and "wechat" are the top-2 domination payment platforms in Chinese
>   market. And the two QR code pictures are generated from the corresponding
>   APPs by the upstream author. The whole software project is licensed under
>   GPL-3 and the QR codes are used for receiving donations.
>
>   Why are they non-free?
>
> Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.
>
>   1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
>      I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.
>
>   2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
>      There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.
>
>   3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the package
>      build process.
>      "Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the hashsum
>       mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be evil?"
>      I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not byte-to-byte
>      equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.
>
> Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free? Is DFSG over-interpreted in
> this case? How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
>
> [1] The package has been REJECT'ed for two reasons:
>     1. "doc/*_donate.jpg are probably not DFSG-free"
>     2. Missing copyright information for "package/luci-compat/tool/po2lmo/src/*"
>     There is no problem with the second point. This mail only talks about the first point.

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Mo Zhou
Hi,

Another public acknowledgement I should make is that I'm no longer an
FTP Trainee ... So my name in the member list [1] is no longer valid.

In the past indeed I have discussed about my shallow experience of
working as a Trainee, and discussed about how some portions of the NEW
queue workflow can be improved. According to the private messages I have
received, I started to doubt whether I should have done that. So ...
sorry again if that introduced inconvenience to you guys.

This is not related to anything about transparency. This is just that I
violated the current rules of the team. And I accept the consequence of
being expelled from the team and the damage to trust.  Well, sometimes
I'm just so blind to see only one thing and get braindead.

[1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 02:28:19PM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:

> Hi fellow devs,
>
> I acknowlege that I sometimes do things in inappropriate ways
> unintentionally, and I accept the consequences of my fault.  And this
> time I did something unprofessional, leaking messages from -private
> without asking for permission first.
>
> I was wrong. Sorry for that.
>
> Mo.
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 05:54:23AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> > Hi fellow devs,
> >
> > I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
> > the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
> > used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
> > the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.
> >
> > I poked ftp-master about this problem:
> >
> >   <lumin> spwhitton: I'm quite confused about REJECTION of src:smartdns. Why can
> >   the QR code pictures for software author to receive donations be DFSG-nonfree?
> >
> > And I got the following explanations:
> >
> >   <spwhitton> lumin: IIRC that was not the only reason for REJECT.  Otherwise I
> >   would have PRODded.
> >
> >   <ScottK> lumin: An image of a QR code wouldn't be the preferred form of
> >   modification.  They are usually generated from something.  If the file it was
> >   generated from isn't present and the tool to generate it isn't in Debian, then
> >   it can't be shipped.  Requiring preferred form of modification is one area
> >   where Debian is often stricter than licenses due to DFSG.
> >
> > The pictures we're talking about are:
> >
> >   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/alipay_donate.jpg
> >   * https://salsa.debian.org/debian/smartdns/-/blob/master/doc/wechat_donate.jpg
> >
> >   "alipay" and "wechat" are the top-2 domination payment platforms in Chinese
> >   market. And the two QR code pictures are generated from the corresponding
> >   APPs by the upstream author. The whole software project is licensed under
> >   GPL-3 and the QR codes are used for receiving donations.
> >
> >   Why are they non-free?
> >
> > Treating this files as non-free could lead to further problems.
> >
> >   1. If I stripped the donation codes from the source.
> >      I believe such behaviour is **unethical**.
> >
> >   2. If I decoded the QR code and replaced them with the underlying URLs.
> >      There is no Chinese user who pay through URL instead of QR code.
> >
> >   3. If I stripped the donation codes but re-generated them during the package
> >      build process.
> >      "Oh damn, this QR code does not look like the original one and the hashsum
> >       mismatches. Has the Debian developer forged the QR code to be evil?"
> >      I mean there will be doubt if the distributed QR code is not byte-to-byte
> >      equivalent to the one distributed by upstream author.
> >
> > Is a QR code for donation really DFSG non-free? Is DFSG over-interpreted in
> > this case? How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
> >
> > [1] The package has been REJECT'ed for two reasons:
> >     1. "doc/*_donate.jpg are probably not DFSG-free"
> >     2. Missing copyright information for "package/luci-compat/tool/po2lmo/src/*"
> >     There is no problem with the second point. This mail only talks about the first point.

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Mo Zhou
In reply to this post by Johannes Schauer-3
Hi Johannes,

I opened an issue at upstream:
https://github.com/pymumu/smartdns/issues/452
(Note, written in Chinese)

Let's wait to see the answer.

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:49:34AM +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting Paul Wise (2020-03-30 10:20:08)
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:53 AM Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> > > 1. There's no info loss if you convert from one to another.
> > You definitely lose the (presumably non-free) television/game characters when
> > converting from the original QR codes to plain text.
>
> I think this point is important: are these pictures in the center DFSG free or
> not?
>
> lumin, could you answer that question?
>
> Thanks!
>
> cheers, josch


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
In reply to this post by Raphael Hertzog-3
Le lundi, 30 mars 2020, 10.14:13 h CEST Raphael Hertzog a écrit :

> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> > > How should package maintainers deal with QR codes ethically?
> >
> > Asking package maintainers to rebuild functionally-equivalent QR-codes
> > during the build-process seems entirely reasonable to me.
>
> To me it looks like wasting my time. There are many pictures that are
> not the preferred form of modification but we accept them as is when
> there's no proof/evidence that some other source exist.
>
> And here there's no other source really, the source is the string
> associated to the QR code. QR code and the string are two different
> representation of the same underlying data.
Yet one is a string, and the other one an image. If you edit the string before
turning it into a QR code, you get a valid QR code (maybe encoding a broken,
or misleading URL, but still valid QR code). If you edit the QR code directly,
you _can_ get a valid QR code, but chances are that you are not getting what
you want. We have a direct "string representation" → "binary artifact", quite
like in compilation.

That said. We don't _have_ to ship these in source or binary packages, and
therefore getaway without re-building these. But if we are to ship them,
building them at build-time from their source strings is a really modest price
to pay; for the sake of "actually building binary artifacts from source".

--
    OdyX

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Russ Allbery-2
Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <[hidden email]> writes:

> Yet one is a string, and the other one an image. If you edit the string
> before turning it into a QR code, you get a valid QR code (maybe
> encoding a broken, or misleading URL, but still valid QR code). If you
> edit the QR code directly, you _can_ get a valid QR code, but chances
> are that you are not getting what you want. We have a direct "string
> representation" → "binary artifact", quite like in compilation.

Putting aside the issue of the embedded graphic, which is a separate
matter, this doesn't sound right to me.  Surely the QR code is an
encoding of a string?  If one can do a round-trip conversion into your
preferred format without loss, I'm having a hard time seeing how this is
not a preferred form of modification.

In other words, to me this feels like claiming that ISO 8859-1 text files
are not in the preferred form of modification because they're not Unicode.
You can convert them to Unicode trivially and without information loss, so
this doesn't feel like a distinction we should be drawing.

> That said. We don't _have_ to ship these in source or binary packages,
> and therefore getaway without re-building these. But if we are to ship
> them, building them at build-time from their source strings is a really
> modest price to pay; for the sake of "actually building binary artifacts
> from source".

If you apply this same rule to character sets or encodings (test files in
base64, for instance), I think it looks obviously silly, and I'm not sure
why this case would be any different.

--
Russ Allbery ([hidden email])              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Samuel Thibault-8
Russ Allbery, le lun. 30 mars 2020 12:08:18 -0700, a ecrit:
> Surely the QR code is an encoding of a string?

Yes, but can you easily modify the URL in that form?

Do you have an editor that can open it as such and let you check and
modify the URL?

> In other words, to me this feels like claiming that ISO 8859-1 text files
> are not in the preferred form of modification because they're not Unicode.

That's different: most editors are able to open both ISO-8859-1 and
Unicode files.

Concerning base64-encoded text files, it's quite borderline. Possibly
some editor do support opening base64-encoded files, then it's fine to
have this as source code. Otherwise I don't see it as the preferred
format for modifications.

Samuel

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Sean Whitton
In reply to this post by Mo Zhou
Hello,

On Mon 30 Mar 2020 at 05:54AM +00, Mo Zhou wrote:

> I think sometimes the DFSG has been over-interpreted. Here I'm talking about
> the recent REJECTion of src:smartdns from our NEW queue, where QR code pictures
> used for donation have been deemed DFSG non-free [1]. I'm not satisfied with
> the explanation, and I think there is over-interpretation on DFSG.

Just for the benefit of discussions in this thread:

The text quoted from the -private IRC channel is a bit misleading.  I
was the one who rejected the upload, and it was not actually because of
the QR codes, but for other reasons.

I couldn't actually tell that the image files were QR codes because we
cannot readily view images during NEW review.

--
Sean Whitton

signature.asc (847 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Overinterpretation of DFSG? QR code for receiving donation is non-free???

Richard Laager
On 3/30/20 2:34 PM, Sean Whitton wrote:
> The text quoted from the -private IRC channel is a bit misleading.  I
> was the one who rejected the upload, and it was not actually because of
> the QR codes, but for other reasons.

I think it was pretty clear from the original email that there was
another reason, not under debate, for why it was rejected. This thread
was only to address the QR code question.

--
Richard


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
12