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

Henrique de Moraes Holsch · External Since: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 719

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> 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

A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you
are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists,
only.

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

Then do so.

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

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

Henrique de Moraes Holsch · External Since: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 719

On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> 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 !

A lot of us thought it was far and beyond "editorial", which is why GR
2004-04 was held with options to *entirely revoke* GR 2004-03 (the
"editorial" one).

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh

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

Thomas Weber · External Since: Feb 09, 2006 Posts: 141

Am Donnerstag, den 09.02.2006, 12:50 +0100 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Feb 09, Adam Borowski wrote:
>
> > 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,
> Unfortunately, definition #2 is the one which almost everybody agreed to

How so? Is there any document in Debian, stating that "software" follows
definition 2?

BTW, taking this classification, where do you put PostScript files --
software or documentation?

Regards
Thomas

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

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

On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 07:56:45PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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".

In the same line of thinking, it cannot be obviated merely by a single
person declaring "there is a contradiction here". Even if that single
person, by constitutional decree, is the one who "Adjudicates any
disputes about interpretation of the constitution" (note, the
constitution--not the DFSG, which is a "foundation document" but not the
same thing as the constitution).

--
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

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

Christopher Martin writes:

> If the developers are (as a whole) too untrustworthy to be able to vote on
> such matters without 3:1 training wheels attached by their elders, then who
> should be trusted?

So is it your view then that the 3:1 requirement is pointless?

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-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:

> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> 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.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.

They can be trusted not to lie. They cannot be trusted never to make
a mistake.

--
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:

> Docs and firmware in Debian should be DFSG-free [yes/no]
> If the above happens it should be post-sarge [yes/no]
> Common GFDL docs are free anyway [yes/no]
>
> As it happens, those eight combinations are only some of the nuances
> we've had in the votes to date.

This way we can postpone removing the non-free DFSG docs forever! We
can just always think of a "new" issue to raise. I find this
dishonorable.

--
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

md RemoveThis @Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> 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.

> 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.

What about the second vote? How many votes do you need to lose,
before you decide that you have lost, and stop bringing it up over and
over again?

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

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

Christopher Martin writes:

> I'm getting sick and tired of hearing this over and over again. The last two
> votes were not about the GFDL.

Why did we take the second vote?

Hint: because the Release Manager pointed out that the first vote
required the removal of GFDL docs from sarge, and people felt that it
was not worth delaying the release of sarge to do this.

Thomas

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-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

Peter Samuelson writes:

> [Christopher Martin]
>> If an issue is highly controversial, then I can think of no better
>> way of settling it in a way that most developers will accept than a
>> vote. People respect votes much more than decrees, even if they don't
>> agree with them.
>
> And yet in this very thread we *still* have people whinging about GR
> 2004-03 being "deceptive". (Yes, *after* you all had the opportunity
> in 2004-04 to repeal it, and didn't do so.) Either astounding or
> depressing.

Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I
wonder. I don't recall anyone saying that. This makes the deception
claim all the worse.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-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

Christopher Martin writes:

> What I do see are a handful of single-minded individuals (only a small
> subset of those who wish to have the GFDL removed, I stress) who seem
> incapable of grasping the possibility that people might disagree with their
> DFSG interpretations without being evil, stupid, or secret traitors to
> Debian willing to sell out our sacred principles for trifling expediency
> without the guts to admit what they're doing.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I haven't called anyone evil,
stupid, or a secret traitor, and I've heard no one else call anyone
else such things in this debate. Well, Craig has. He's on your side,
right?

> Thus the viewpoint that the developers shouldn't be allowed to
> decide what the foundation documents mean makes perfect sense.

If a mere majority resolution can declare what the foundation
documents mean, then the requirement of a supermajority is
meaningless.

Really, the purpose of the 3:1 requirement is to prevent a majority
from changing the foundation documents. If it means anything, it
means that a mere majority is *not sufficient* to decide such a
question.

Of course, the people who wanted the 3:1 supermajority are largely
those who wanted to keep non-free in the Debian archive. In this way,
the necessary changes to the Social Contract could be defeated. Ah,
now it turns out that this works both ways. Suddenly we hear calls
for strict majoritarianism.

Thomas

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

Hamish Moffatt · External Since: Nov 09, 2004 Posts: 469

On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 01:49:41PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> 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.

Isn't it obviously the copyright holder's intention that you be able to
build the software, including the automatic relicensing? Isn't there an
implicit grant of permission?

There may be good examples of GFDL/GPL interaction problems, but the
above example is absurd, IMHO.

Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB

--
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 2/9/06, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 08:58:39PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > It's not about honor; it's about decision-making.
>
> When you raise the implication that your fellow developers can't be
> trusted, you make it about honour; when you think it's important to
> move a decision from one set of hands to another in order to ensure the
> "right" decision is made, that's a pretty direct implication that you
> don't trust the first group.

Is this courtesy to be extended to the project secretary?

If not, why not?

> > 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?
>
> If the secretary sincerely believes the proposal has a 3:1 requirement,
> does that mean it does? I think you're better off looking at the
> constitution, personally.

This seems to be a moot distinction, given that the constitution says
that the secretary is the judge in disputes about what the constitution
means. (section 7.1.3)

> As it happens, it says nothing about implicit changes to foundation
> documents, or even about having to act in accord with them.

Section 4.1.5.3 seems to say something about this issue. It doesn't
use the exact words you've used, but the meaning of the words it
does use seems more than adequate.

--
Raul

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

md.TakeThisOut@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.

> This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
> interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
> accept non-free documentation into main.

How is this relevant?

--
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

Christopher Martin writes:

> Please don't be so doggedly literal. The point of my little parody was to
> draw out, in a stark manner, the attitudes which seem to underlie the
> viewpoint which you hold, whether you're willing to spell them out or not.
> Our fellow readers can judge my assessment's plausibility for themselves.

No, this is simply not the attitudes which underlay my viewpoint.

> I have no idea what you're talking about. Nobody is calling for "strict
> majoritarianism". What is being called for is that the developers be
> allowed to decide issues of interpretation of the DFSG, as is their
> prerogative.

Ah, well, they do have that right. All I'm saying is that when their
"interpretation" is judged by the Secretary to be more in the nature
of a "repeal", they must do so by a 3:1 vote.

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

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

md DeleteThis @Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Feb 09, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
>> Has anyone come forward and said "I was deceived by GR 2004-03"? I

> Yes, multiple people did. HTH.

Who? I can't recall any. Can you provide pointers?

What did they say in response to questions like "did you read the
changes?"

--
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:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 11:50:51AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > 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.

That would be a moot point, not a contradiction.

> 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.

This can only be true where appearances are deceiving.

--
Raul

Jérôme_Marant · External Since: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 75

Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:

> md.RemoveThis@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:
>
>> On Feb 09, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>
>>> This was necessary only because the release manager believed the changes
>>> to be non-editorial. I cannot even understand an interpretation of the
>>> old wording that can lead us to accept non-free documentation into main.
>
>> This may be annoying for you, but it's a fact that there is an
>> interpretation of the old wording which has been used for years to
>> accept non-free documentation into main.
>
> How is this relevant?

Consistency?

--
JÃ©rÃ´me Marant

Jérôme_Marant · External Since: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 75

Henrique de Moraes Holschuh writes:

> On Thu, 09 Feb 2006, JÃ©rÃ´me Marant wrote:
>> 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
>
> A 3:1 majority win in 2004-04 makes your claim rather tenuous, unless you
> are arguing that such a large part of Debian is composed of extremists,
> only.

That was a 3:1 majority out of 200 voters, considering that Debian
counts almost 1000 developers and considering that many pros are
convinced they have been deceived.

Extremists are a minority but a very lound minority as usual which makes
them often win.

Dictorship of Minorities shall be opposed.

--
JÃ©rÃ´me Marant

Jérôme_Marant · External Since: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 75

Josselin Mouette writes:

>> Consistency?
>
> There is nothing like consistency in someone asserting that "Debian Will
> Remain 100% Free Software" means "98% free software and 2% non-free
> other things".

Prior to GFDL, GNU Manuals used to have the same kinds of restrictions
like invariant sections but noone has ever battled for moving them
to non-free. Then came GFDL and people suddenly decided to change
the "de facto" rules. This is the kind of consistency I'm talking
about (whether invariant sections should be allowed or not).

--
JÃ©rÃ´me Marant