Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Con..

Frank_Küster · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 1298

Hi,

the text of the amendment says at its very end:

,----
| Since this amendment would require modification of a foundation
| document, namely, the Social Contract, it requires a 3:1 majority to
| pass.
`----

But AFAICS it does not propose a textual change to the SC, just a change
of its meaning, or interpretation or whatever. I have a couple of
questions about this:

- Has this been done previously? If yes, where can I find a collection
of all decisions that have thus "changed" the SC?

- Shouldn't we add a sentence to the SC, something like "In a couple of
cases, the interpretation of this Social Contract or how it should be
spelled out in technical details was controversial among the project,
and votes have been taken. The results of these votes are at
<hyperlink>"?

As for the intention of the amendment, it seems to me that it relies
heavily on the assumption that the excempted clauses are simply bugs of
the license text and not the actual intention. Given how bad
communication with the FSF was wrt to the GFDL, I doubt that we can sure
about this...

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Adeodato Simó · External Since: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 127

* Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:

> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to the SC, something of the form:
> - Debian will remain 100% free
> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL
> (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).

> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social contract,
since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a
3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a
statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think
explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all.

Or so.

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud: after a
while, you realize the pig is enjoying it.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Frank_Küster · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 1298

Adeodato Simó wrote:

> * Debian Project Secretary [Thu, 19 Jan 2006 10:12:50 -0600]:
>
>> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
>> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.
>
> I don't see why this _physical modification_ is necessary. I can admit
> that the secretary says "this amendment overrules the social contract,
> since it talks about putting non-free things in main, so it requires a
> 3:1 majority"; but if the amendment passes, and so the GR issues a
> statement that some GFDL documents will remain in main, I don't think
> explicit wording is needed _in_ the SC, at all.

I disagree - either the interpretation of the SC allows GFDL'ed
documents without invariant (et al) sections, then we don't need a 3:1
majority, or it doesn't - then we have to change it if we want to keep
our promises.

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Frank_Küster · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 1298

Debian Project Secretary wrote:

> The fact that the license is buggy does not change the fact
> that works licensed under it would violate the DFSG. Given that, any
> resolution to allow these works to remain in Debian would require a
> rider to be added to the SC, something of the form:
> - Debian will remain 100% free
> + Debian will remain 100% free, apart from works licensed under the GFDL
> (the exact wording can be decided upon if the amendment passes).
>
> Since this requires a modification of a foundation document,
> the amendment requires a 3:1 majority.

I think the text should rather be fixed before the vote.

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)

Brian Nelson · External Since: Dec 17, 2004 Posts: 227

Christopher Martin writes:

> On Thursday 19 January 2006 12:09, Adeodato Simó wrote:
>> However, I'm pretty sure that more than one Developer thinks the
>> proper interpretation would be:
>>
>> (b) this amendment overrules debian-legal's assessment that certain
>> two clauses of the GFDL are non-free, and thus needs 1:1
>
> Right. To declare that the amendment would constitute a modification of a
> foundation document is to presuppose the very issue that this amendment
> seeks to clarify, namely, whether or not the GFDL-minus-invariant-sections
> is indeed non-free. If the amendment passes, then
> GFDL-minus-invariant-sections docs would not be considered non-free, and so
> could be allowed in main without any special dispensation. The amendment is
> not intended to declare that we should suspend the DFSG for the sake of
> expediency; such a proposal would indeed require a 3:1 supermajority.
> Rather, it simply promulgates the interpretation that the GFDL, minus
> invariant sections, while not perfect, is still DFSG-free.

Ummm, so how exactly does declaring an interpretation of the DFSG as the
one the project accepts constitute a modification? Are you telling me
that when a judge interprets a law to make a ruling, that law has been
changed in some way?

--
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Brian Nelson writes:

> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
> issue.

You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Brian Nelson · External Since: Dec 17, 2004 Posts: 227

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Brian Nelson writes:
>
>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>> issue.
>
> You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.

Weeee, look at me! I'm Thomas Bushnell and I reply to every single
message on every single Debian mailing list, regardless of whether I
have anything useful to say!

--
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Brian Nelson writes:

> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
>> Brian Nelson writes:
>>
>>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>>> issue.
>>
>> You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
>
> Weeee, look at me! I'm Thomas Bushnell and I reply to every single
> message on every single Debian mailing list, regardless of whether I
> have anything useful to say!

Huh? You seemed to be saying (using quite formal language like
"hereby") that your questioning should have some effect.

My point is that it does not, and need not. It has only whatever
effect Manoj chooses to give it.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Brian Nelson · External Since: Dec 17, 2004 Posts: 227

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> Brian Nelson writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>>
>>> Brian Nelson writes:
>>>
>>>> I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
>>>> of being impartial in this case given his personal interests[1] in this
>>>> issue.
>>>
>>> You may question it, but it doesn't affect the case.
>>
>> Weeee, look at me! I'm Thomas Bushnell and I reply to every single
>> message on every single Debian mailing list, regardless of whether I
>> have anything useful to say!
>
> Huh? You seemed to be saying (using quite formal language like
> "hereby") that your questioning should have some effect.

It was a jest, partly at Manoj's writing style because I knew he'd read
it, and partly at the overall absurdity that seems to be plaguing the
project. The point still stands, however.

> My point is that it does not, and need not. It has only whatever
> effect Manoj chooses to give it.

The secretary is supposed to "make decisions... preferably consistent
with the consensus of the Developers". By speaking out against it, I'm
trying to change the consensus.

--
Captain Logic is not steering this tugboat.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Raul Miller · External Since: May 06, 2005 Posts: 37

On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips wrote:
> The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> require a supermajority.

This comment seems insincere.

If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
the foundation documents".

--
Raul

Wouter Verhelst · External Since: Nov 08, 2004 Posts: 653

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> essentially this:
>
> We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
> permission to remove them.
>
> Or rewritten slightly more clearly (by "bad bits" I obviously mean
> invariant sections, cover texts etc.):
>
> We will not include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits if we have
> permission to remove them.

Sorry, but the above two sentences mean something *completely*
different. Either you had a brain fart here, or your knowledge of the
English language is... strange.

--
Fun will now commence
-- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Nick Phillips · External Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 30

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:47:36PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 09:21:36PM +1300, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > What it says, for those who can't (or can't be bothered) to read it is
> > essentially this:
> >
> > We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits unless we have
> > permission to remove them.
> >
> > Or rewritten slightly more clearly (by "bad bits" I obviously mean
> > invariant sections, cover texts etc.):
> >
> > We will not include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits if we have
> > permission to remove them.
>
> Sorry, but the above two sentences mean something *completely*
> different. Either you had a brain fart here, or your knowledge of the
> English language is... strange.

Bah, brain fart indeed. Negated the wrong bit. Not entirely surprising
given that the original didn't make sense anyway. Fixed, it translates
to:

"We will include GFDL'd works that have no bad bits if we do not have
permission to remove them."

"Them" cannot apply to non-existent bad bits, so can only apply to
the works. So, who has to give us permission to remove things?

This does *not* make sense...

Cheers,

Nick

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Nick Phillips · External Since: Jan 13, 2005 Posts: 30

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On 2/8/06, Nick Phillips wrote:
> > The GR as amended might appear to contradict the Social Contract, or the
> > DFSG, but it certainly *does not* modify them, and hence cannot be said to
> > require a supermajority.
>
> This comment seems insincere.

Down that road lies tit-for-tat ad-hominem.

> If the GR is adopted by Debian, there is no significant difference
> between "contradicts the foundation documents" and "modifies
> the foundation documents".

First of all, you're assuming that it does contradict the foundation
documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
mess.

Second, you're completely wrong. Of course there is a difference
between modifying the foundation documents and appearing to contradict
them. One modifies them and the other, well, doesn't.

Cheers,

Nick

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Nick Phillips writes:

> documents. It clearly asserts otherwise, and one might assume that
> developers voting for it would agree with that. If it won a majority,
> it would therefore seem to be the case that the majority of developers
> agreed with it. In which case those asserting that it needed
> supermajority wouldn't have a leg to stand on. So we'd be in a right
> mess.

Clearly if the 3:1 supermajority requirement means anything, it cannot
be obviated merely by a simple majority declaring "there is no
contradiction".

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Bushnell BSG · External Since: Nov 12, 2004 Posts: 727

Anthony Towns writes:

> In any event, there is in fact a meaning in that case: the 3:1
> suerpmajority would still apply to issues where the majority of developers
> felt that the proposed resolution did contradict the social contract or
> DFSG -- and that the social contract/DFSG happened to be wrong.

> Personally, I hope and trust that the developer body are honourable
> enough to note vote for a proposal they think contradicts the social
> contract or DFSG.

It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.

If a majority sincerely believe that their proposal does not run afoul
of the 3:1 requirement, does that mean that it therefore does not?

I think that it is possible for people to disagree about such a
question, and it seems crazy to me to say that anytime they disagree,
it can be settled by majority vote.

Moreover, while I think a majority of the developers are surely
honorable, this is not true of everyone. Now that this is the *third*
time we are being asked to vote on essentially the same question, I
suspect that many of the proponents of the measure are simply
unwilling to let it drop, and will continue to pester the rest of the
project forever. This is not honorable behavior.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Adam Borowski · External Since: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 12

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

There are two different definitions of the word software:
1. something that can be represented as a finite stream of bits
2. a computer program

Definition 1. is precise, definition 2. is not (PostScript, pseudocode,
programs in scripting languages, examples in documentation, string data,
embedded graphic, icons, Perl pod, etc...), leading to questions like:
"this program outputs 'Hello world', the code is under GPL, the data
cannot be modified -- does this meet DFSG?"

Another example: the best piece of documentation on vt codes I found is
in /usr/src/linux/drivers/char/vt.c. For me, it was documentation, for
most of us, it's only code.

Thus, the "editorial change" was simply "changing the wording to something
disambiguous". This is clearly just an editorial change _unless_ someone
mistakenly assumes the other interpretation. Which seems to be the case
here.

Suddenly changing the rules to allow non-free documentation would lead to
significant practical problems. For example, I once ported a piece of
software (meaning 2.) to Solaris, IRIX and BSD, raiding the man pages for
each of these systems, copying snippets directly into my code (#ifdefed
and autoconfed). I am allowed to do so. The glibc version of the
relevant code predates GFDL, but if I was doing the porting today, I would
be forced to reinvent the wheel (around two screenfuls of code). And
supposedly GNU is all about freedom...

--
/-----------------------\ Shh, be vewy, vewy quiet,
| kilobyte.TakeThisOut@mimuw.edu.pl | I'm hunting wuntime ewwows!
\-----------------------/
Segmentation fault (core dumped)

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Jérôme Marant · External Since: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 61

Quoting Marco d'Itri :

> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

The only people it made happy are extremists. See #207932. This is a
very good example of the silliness it leads to. You won't be surprised
to see the same fundamentalists as involved in debian-legal crusades.

I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.

--
Jérôme Marant

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Xavier Roche · External Since: Dec 20, 2004 Posts: 17

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software is.

I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)

Josselin Mouette · External Since: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 1252

Le jeudi 09 février 2006 à 09:59 +0100, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.

Hey ! Look ! We've just found a second person to think the change wasn't
editorial !
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette RemoveThis @ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss RemoveThis @debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Simon Richter · External Since: Dec 21, 2004 Posts: 130

Hi,

Xavier Roche wrote:

> I fully agree. The "Holier than Stallman" stuff is really getting
> ridiculous. After the firmware madeness, now the documentation madeness.
> And after that, the font madeness maybe ? (after all, fonts ARE also
> software, and they shall be distributed with their original sources)

It's not about us being holier than Stallman. It's about Stallman not
caring that his new license is creating real world problems for everyone
but the FSF because only the FSF has permission to relicense their stuff.

The binutils package generates part of its documentation from header
files in order to get the structures and constants right. The headers
are GPLed, the compiled documentation is under the GFDL. For this
relicensing to happen, one must be the copyright holder, or have an
appropriate license, which after a quick glance does not seem to be
there. Thus, only the FSF may build the binutils package. I'd be very
surprised if that were to meet your definition of free software.

Simon

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org