|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > March 2004 > A sensible plan for non-free
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
A sensible plan for non-free
|
|
| Ean Schuessler 2004-03-11, 9:34 pm |
| =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
The Social Contract demands that we support users of non-free software. Deb=
ian=20
has always been grounded in realism and we have always understood that some=
=20
organizations may need to use systems on Debian that are not going to be=20
=46ree.
At the same time it has been clearly identified that non-free files are not=
=20
part of Debian. The people that created them refused to license them to the=
=20
community and the community has no obligation to do the work of spreading=20
their non-free software. We have always provided developers and distributor=
s=20
who had an interest in non-free a way of getting to it but we have always=20
excluded it from distribution.
Since the time of the Social Contract's inception the growth of broadband a=
nd=20
the Internet has been astonishing. Today we see that the Debian servers are=
a=20
major form of distribution for non-free software. Clearly, that is not=20
acceptable.
Therefore, I propose the following:
Non-free and contrib should stay exactly where they are. They should be in =
the=20
current bug system and in every way, from a development point of view, they=
=20
should be dealt with in the way that we currently deal with them.
The change I suggest is that the non-free and contrib sections be protected=
by=20
certificate authentication. Certificates will be distributed to 3rd parties=
=20
who sign up as an official 3rd party distributor of the non-free and contri=
b=20
sections. All developers will also be issued a certificate for development=
=20
purposes. Beyond these groups no end user will be able to download non-free=
=20
or contrib software from a Debian controlled server.
All 3rd party distributors will execute an agreement with Debian indemnifyi=
ng=20
Debian against damages that result from their distribution of software=20
retrieved from Debian servers. It will be up to these organizations to=20
establish a valid business model for their distributions and to take=20
responsibility for any legal mishaps that occur because of their actions.
This plan is precisely in line with current 3rd party CD distribution=20
policies. It simply reorganizes network distribution to follow a structure=
=20
similar to the well established physical distribution. Most importantly it=
=20
ends Debian's distribution of non-free without adversely impacting current=
=20
development procedure.
In the sense that these packages will no longer be available by direct=20
download I suggest that they be considered to "no longer be in the archive"=
=20
and in compliance with Proposal-0008. I also suggest that the legal agreeme=
nt=20
drafted for network distribution deal with physical distribution and requir=
e=20
existing 3rd party physical distributors to execute the agreement.
I would like to hear opinions on whether this plan requires a further Gener=
al=20
Resolution or whether it could be adopted as a methodology of fulfilling=20
Proposal-0008 and put into action by the DPL if the DPL is so inclined.
=2D --=20
Ean Schuessler, President
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
http://www.spi-inc.org
=2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBQFEWK1p7Rmblcu9ZAQHo5wP/VjVjv5cKUN8SoqsXYBXOd3M9zF+ZPTLR
OzMhmKOr0NLB+b3Vnb4s08V24Bf/MSM7L3f2aMyFZ8ReMB7jQmxJdz7R+33b/zvf
qPwylcYGMomY9tIxZyGJdzkAQPa0T2YYPLr/pzJ3KtkDY3lIYSbb1Re4vLkGu2vg
m5q/LGP7mLo=3D
=3DTspm
=2D----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Marc Singer 2004-03-12, 12:33 am |
| On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:45:09PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Therefore, I propose the following:
>
> Non-free and contrib should stay exactly where they are. They should be in the
> current bug system and in every way, from a development point of view, they
> should be dealt with in the way that we currently deal with them.
>
> The change I suggest is that the non-free and contrib sections be protected by
> certificate authentication. Certificates will be distributed to 3rd parties
> who sign up as an official 3rd party distributor of the non-free and contrib
> sections. All developers will also be issued a certificate for development
> purposes. Beyond these groups no end user will be able to download non-free
> or contrib software from a Debian controlled server.
This sounds like a reasonable suggestion.
But let me see if I can paraphrase this: the non-free continues to be
archived on Debian servers but only DDs and authorized 3rd parties
will be able to access the non-free portion of the archve.
If this is so, how do you believe a non-DD access non-free over the
Internet?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Chad Walstrom 2004-03-12, 10:37 am |
| On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:54:10PM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
> But let me see if I can paraphrase this: the non-free continues to be
> archived on Debian servers but only DDs and authorized 3rd parties
> will be able to access the non-free portion of the archve.
>
> If this is so, how do you believe a non-DD access non-free over the
> Internet?
He's proposing to have Debian's archives as the Master site for packages
and the 3rd Party archives as the Slave sites. Changes happen on Debian
but packages are only available by adding lines to your sources.list.
--
Chad Walstrom <chewie@wookimus.net> http://www.wookimus.net/
assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Joachim Breitner 2004-03-12, 11:35 am |
| Hi,
Am Fr, den 12.03.2004 schrieb Ean Schuessler um 02:45:
> Non-free and contrib
Why contrib? Contrib is free software by itself, and I think there is no
reason to keep our users from using our mirror network to getting these
package.
nomeata
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
JID: joachimbreitner@amessage.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
| |
| Marc Singer 2004-03-12, 12:34 pm |
| On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:44:27AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 08:54:10PM -0800, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> He's proposing to have Debian's archives as the Master site for packages
> and the 3rd Party archives as the Slave sites. Changes happen on Debian
> but packages are only available by adding lines to your sources.list.
I can see two ways that this might be used. Either,
A) non-free.debian.org becomes a round-robin of 3rd party archive servers
that deliver all non-free packages, or
B) users users of non-free may have to add archive entries for
several different non-free servers.
deb http://non-free.acme.org ./
deb http://non-free.cogswell.org ./
In the case of A, Debian still must retain storage for all of the
non-packages, but users of non-free no longer get them from Debian
servers. So we're enrolling a group of 3rd parties to pay some of the
bandwidth costs.
In B, we're putting the burden of locating non-free package source
onto end users. In this case, I'm not sure why Debian is involved in
non-free at all.
I'm not getting where the win is. How does this plan change the
status of non-free?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ean Schuessler 2004-03-12, 1:34 pm |
| Option B.
Just remember that the idea is for online distribution to mimic current 3rd
party CD distribution. With 3rd party CDs we just provide a list of places
that you can order the CDs from. It is up to those vendors to make licensing
arrangements for non-free and it is up to them to determine how much they
charge for the CDs. We will now encourage a similar arrangement for
distributing non-free on-line.
This new category of on-line 3rd party distributors will provide users with an
apt-get source that provides transfers under whatever policies they prefer. A
school might act as a distributor to its students, a company to its employees
or a for-profit distributor to its subscribers. In any case, Debian itself
will not provide an anonymous transfer service to the general public for
non-free software.
The benefit is that we insure that "supported" non-free software is maintained
under our close supervision without actually distributing it ourselves. We do
not end up establishing some new organization that has an unclear
relationship to Debian. We mostly go on as we always have, except that we no
longer distribute non-free on-line to end users.
On Friday 12 March 2004 10:54, Marc Singer wrote:
> I can see two ways that this might be used. Either,
>
> A) non-free.debian.org becomes a round-robin of 3rd party archive servers
> that deliver all non-free packages, or
> B) users users of non-free may have to add archive entries for
> several different non-free servers.
>
> deb http://non-free.acme.org ./
> deb http://non-free.cogswell.org ./
>
> In the case of A, Debian still must retain storage for all of the
> non-packages, but users of non-free no longer get them from Debian
> servers. So we're enrolling a group of 3rd parties to pay some of the
> bandwidth costs.
>
> In B, we're putting the burden of locating non-free package source
> onto end users. In this case, I'm not sure why Debian is involved in
> non-free at all.
>
> I'm not getting where the win is. How does this plan change the
> status of non-free?
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Marc Singer 2004-03-12, 2:35 pm |
| On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 11:34:18AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> The benefit is that we insure that "supported" non-free software is
> maintained under our close supervision without actually distributing
> it ourselves. We do not end up establishing some new organization
> that has an unclear relationship to Debian. We mostly go on as we
> always have, except that we no longer distribute non-free on-line to
> end users.
In this scenario, we don't distribute non-free but we *do* still
support it via space on our servers. How does this better achieve
DFSG goals than simply distributing non-free?
Let me put it another way. It is clear removing non-free from the
Debian mirror will require end-users to be (more) aware that they are
using non-free software when they choose to do so. Is that the aim of
this policy change? Or, are we looking to encourage non-free software
authors to change their licenses? Or, are we looking to isolate
non-free so that Debian mirrors who don't want non-free can do so?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-03-12, 3:34 pm |
| On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 07:45:09PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
[...]
I know it's been said before, but it obviously has to be said again, and
again, and again.
debian-devel mailing list description:
Discussion about technical development topics. (High-volume mailing list.)
debian-project mailing list description:
Discussion about non-technical topics related to the Debian Project.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Ean Schuessler 2004-03-12, 4:35 pm |
| The hopped up political rant in my first thread is certainly subject to this
criticism but I don't think this thread is. This is a technical solution to
an impending political situation.
I suppose I could excise the legal contract sections for discussion on -legal
but they seemed cogent and fairly non-intrusive. Authentication policies for
download, dependency policies, location of bugs, archive policies and the
location of packages all seem to be technical discussions suitable for
-devel.
On Friday 12 March 2004 13:31, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I know it's been said before, but it obviously has to be said again, and
> again, and again.
>
> debian-devel mailing list description:
> Discussion about technical development topics. (High-volume mailing
> list.)
>
> debian-project mailing list description:
> Discussion about non-technical topics related to the Debian Project.
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Josip Rodin 2004-03-12, 4:35 pm |
| On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 02:55:25PM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> The hopped up political rant in my first thread is certainly subject to this
> criticism but I don't think this thread is. This is a technical solution to
> an impending political situation.
>
> I suppose I could excise the legal contract sections for discussion on -legal
> but they seemed cogent and fairly non-intrusive. Authentication policies for
> download, dependency policies, location of bugs, archive policies and the
> location of packages all seem to be technical discussions suitable for
> -devel.
Nevertheless I found them to be much more pertinent to -project. YMMV.
I associate -devel with much more concrete technical things, and it's
getting more and more crowded with various stuff that can go by, but which
really just overcrowds it with traffic that could well be distributed to
other more suitable lists.
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Mathieu Roy 2004-03-12, 7:34 pm |
| Ean Schuessler <ean@spi-inc.org> wrote:
> The Social Contract demands that we support users of non-free software.
The Social Contract starts with "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
Software". Basically, any further claim that Debian must contain/support
non-free software is just contradictory with this very first statement.
If the Social Contract is inevitably contradictory, it has no place in
an argument.
The "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" could be seen as
contradictory. Someone may claim that "Our Users" wants proprietary
software and so Debian should provide it -- that way, in fact Debian
could completely stop being free software, because I'm sure we could
find user with that desire. But even in this part, it is written "we
will provide an integrated system [...] 100% free software", that
disallow any thought of bringing non-free software under the pretext
of following this part f the contract.
The "Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standard" parts just
look like an awkward addon to the Social Contract, just a notice of
the failure of the DFSG to describe Debian activities. If the DFSG
does not fit for what Debian want to support/contain, the DFSG must be
changed. But writing DFSG as rules for Debian, on one hand, and saying
it does not totally fit for Debian, on the other hand, just don't make
sense.
All this talk is just about saying: "We will provide only THAT
STUFF. We are serious, we will provide only THAT STUFF. But we will
also provide THAT OTHER STUFF because we really need to do it, you
know". It is not a sane modus vivendi. If you think you really need to
provide THAT OTHER STUFF, admit it and stop claiming that you are
providing only THAT STUFF. You can say that providing only THAT STUFF
is a goal.
This problem is endless because the Social Contract is partly
broken. The GFDL story shows it easily.
This problem is a real pain in the XXX, because if you criticize parts
of the Social Contract, you are suspected to be an evil intruder,
someone that have nothing to do with Debian, even if you totally agree
with most of it.
> Debian has always been grounded in realism and we have always
> understood that some organizations may need to use systems on Debian
> that are not going to be Free.
Reality is what people build, it is not a given fact.
I have to refrain myself to use the rude word bullshit to describe
this "realism" argument. This reality you describe would be the
failure of the Debian goal, unable to "support the needs of our users"
in a Free Software spirit, unable to be "The Universal Operating
System".
> At the same time it has been clearly identified that non-free files
>are not part of Debian.
This is a claim. But Debian is a distro, and the main point of a
distro is distributing software and supporting distributed software:
Debian distribute non-free and support non-free...
> Since the time of the Social Contract's inception the growth of broadband and
> the Internet has been astonishing. Today we see that the Debian servers are a
> major form of distribution for non-free software. Clearly, that is not
> acceptable.
>
> Therefore, I propose the following:
>
> Non-free and contrib should stay exactly where they are. They should be in the
> current bug system and in every way, from a development point of view, they
> should be dealt with in the way that we currently deal with them.
>
> The change I suggest is that the non-free and contrib sections be protected by
> certificate authentication. Certificates will be distributed to 3rd parties
> who sign up as an official 3rd party distributor of the non-free and contrib
> sections. All developers will also be issued a certificate for development
> purposes. Beyond these groups no end user will be able to download non-free
> or contrib software from a Debian controlled server.
Interesting. So Debian would no longer be a major distributor of
proprietary software but a proprietary software development area.
> In the sense that these packages will no longer be available by direct
> download I suggest that they be considered to "no longer be in the archive"
> and in compliance with Proposal-0008. I also suggest that the legal agreement
> drafted for network distribution deal with physical distribution and require
> existing 3rd party physical distributors to execute the agreement.
>
> I would like to hear opinions on whether this plan requires a further General
> Resolution or whether it could be adopted as a methodology of fulfilling
> Proposal-0008 and put into action by the DPL if the DPL is so inclined.
Sure, it is better than a statu quo, but it raises other issues.
--
Mathieu Roy
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| General Homepage: http://yeupou.coleumes.org/ |
| Computing Homepage: http://alberich.coleumes.org/ |
| Not a native english speaker: |
| http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i.../flawed-english |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| John Hasler 2004-03-12, 7:34 pm |
| Mathieu Roy writes:
> The "Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standard" parts just look
> like an awkward addon to the Social Contract, just a notice of the
> failure of the DFSG to describe Debian activities.
It was an admission that _at_ _the_ _time_ there was non-free software
without which we could not produce a satisfactory integrated system. This
is no longer true.
Unfortunately, now we have the documentation issue.
Ean Schuessler wrote:
> The change I suggest is that the non-free and contrib sections be
> protected by certificate authentication. Certificates will be distributed
> to 3rd parties who sign up as an official 3rd party distributor of the
> non-free and contrib sections. All developers will also be issued a
> certificate for development purposes. Beyond these groups no end user
> will be able to download non-free or contrib software from a Debian
> controlled server.
I see no point in this. We would still be distributing and supporting
non-free software. We'd just be doing it in a roundabout and awkward way.
Might as well stick with the status quo.
--
John Hasler
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| Darren Salt 2004-03-13, 10:34 am |
| I demand that Ean Schuessler may or may not have written...
[snip]
> The benefit is that we insure that "supported" non-free software is
> maintained under our close supervision without actually distributing it
> ourselves. [...]
Er, no. You *ensure* it. Or is there a bet (commonly known as "insurance
payment") involved?
(I'll go back to sleep now...)
--
| Darren Salt | linux (or ds) at | nr. Ashington,
| woody, sarge, | youmustbejoking | Northumberland
| RISC OS | demon co uk | Toon Army
| Let's keep the pound sterling
There are taglines that mention the word 'umbrella' for no apparent reason.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
| |
| ean@brainfood.com 2004-03-15, 3:33 am |
| in-sure: v. tr.
....
2. To make sure, certain or secure.
On Saturday 13 March 2004 08:22 am, Darren Salt wrote:
>
> Er, no. You *ensure* it. Or is there a bet (commonly known as "insurance
> payment") involved?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|
|
|
|
|