Subject: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 96 00:36 BST

Bruce, if you feel it is appropriate, I'd like you to use your magic
fiat power to end the discussion about lyx, contrib, and so forth, by
endorsing the appropriate part of the new policy manual.  I've
attached a copy below.

According to that part lyx, all the Motif packages and the compress
installer need to go in contrib because of their dependency (at build-
or run-time) on non-free software.

Alternatively, if noone objects to this message proposing a sensible
different _policy_ rather than that we should make an exception I'll
take it that what I've written there is agreed by the project.

Ian.

2. Package copyright
--------------------

     Please study the copyright of your submission *carefully* and
     understand it before proceeding. If you have doubts or questions,
     please ask.

     The aims of the policy detailed below are: 
        * That any user be able to rebuild any package in the official
          Debian distribution from the original source plus our patches.
        * That we make available in our packaging formats as much software
          as we can.
        * That it be easy for people to make CDROMs of our distribution
          without violating copyrights.

     All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
     modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
     be possible for anyone to distribute and use modified source code and
     their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a
     Debian distribution.

     Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do
     not allow distribution and copying for profit, without restriction on
     the amount charged, or where distribution is restricted according to
     the medium used, or where the distributor must ask any kind of special
     permission of the authors, or with other onerous conditions, may only
     be placed in the semi-supported non-free section of the Debian FTP
     archives. This is important so that CDROM manufacturers can distribute
     Debian without having to check the copyright of each package
     individually, simply by leaving out the contents of the non-free area;
     CDROM distributors are encouraged, though, to check the copyrights on
     programs in non-free individually and include as many as they can.

     Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) allow
     only distribution of compiled binaries (and thus of which only
     binaries are available), or where the source code which may be
     distributed is not the complete source code required to compile the
     program (ie, the program cannot be compiled using only packages in the
     main Debian distribution), or which depend for their use on non-free
     or contrib packages, or allow free use only for a trial period
     (shareware), or are demonstration programs lacking vital functionality
     (crippleware), or are only installer-packages which require the user
     to supply a separate file to be installed, or which fail to meet some
     other policy requirements, may only be placed in the semi-supported
     contrib section of the Debian FTP archives (unless they need to be in
     non-free - see above).

     Programs whose authors encourage the user to make donations are fine
     for the main distribution, provided that the authors do not claim that
     not donating is immoral, unethical, illegal or something similar;
     otherwise they must go in contrib (or non-free, if even distribution
     is restricted by such statements).

     Packages whose copyright permission notices (or patent problems) do
     not allow redistribution even of only binaries, and where no special
     permission has been obtained, cannot placed on the Debian FTP site and
     its mirrors at all.

     Note that under international copyright law[1] *no* distribution or
     modification of a work is allowed without an explicit notice saying
     so. Therefore a program without a copyright notice *is* copyrighted
     and you may not do anything to it without risking being sued! Likewise
     if a program has a copyright notice but no statement saying what is
     permitted then nothing is permitted.

     [1]  This applies in the United States, too.

     Many authors are unaware of the problems that restrictive copyrights
     (or lack of copyright notices) can cause for the users of their
     supposedly-free software. It is often worthwhile contacting such
     authors diplomatically to ask them to modify their terms generally, or
     specially for Debian. However, this is a politically difficult thing
     to do and you should ask for advice on debian-devel first.

     When in doubt, send mail to <[email-masked]>. Be
     prepared to provide us with the copyright statement. Software covered
     by the GPL, public domain software and BSD-like copyrights are safe;
     be wary of the phrases `commercial use prohibited' and `distribution
     restricted'.

     Every package submission *must* be accompanied by verbatim copy of its
     copyright (with the exceptions of public domain packages and those
     covered by the UCB BSD licence or the GNU GPL or LGPL; in these cases
     simply indicate which is appropriate). This information must be
     included in a file installed by the binary package - see subsection
     3.2.6, ``/usr/doc/<package>/copyright''. 

--
Ian Jackson, at home.   [email-masked]           + 44 1223 3 31579
General: [email-masked]    Permanent: [email-masked]
Churchill College, Cambridge, CB3 0DS.   http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/iwj10/

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:55:44 +0200 (MET DST)

>      their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a

This can't be done with nearly all (la)tex related style files.  When one
wants to change a (la)tex style an other named copy can be used but the
original may not be touched.  Do we really want to ditch (la)tex?

Erick

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 09:06:24 +0200 (MET DST)

> 2. Package copyright

Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
to rebuild LyX. 

> [...]
             ^^^^^^^
>      Debian distribution.

That's exactly the point. I cannot recompile any package that uses Motif
since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
package available. 

Michael

-- 
Michael Meskes                   |    _____ ________ __  ____
[email-masked] |   / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___  __________
[email-masked]                  |   \__ \/ /_  / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
[email-masked]                |  ___/ / __/ /__  __/\__, /  __/ /  (__  )
Use Debian Linux!                | /____/_/      /_/  /____/\___/_/  /____/

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:19:46 -0400 (EDT)

> since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms
Folks that buy my CD can too, but that's because xforms is improperly
located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is
not distributed). Non-free is not part of the Debian distribution (in the
most technical use of the term) and programs that depend on them belong in
contrib (or non-free if they have distribution restrictions).

Luck,

Dwarf

------------                                          --------------

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (904) 877-0257
      Flexible Software              Fax:     NONE 
      Black Creek Critters           e-mail:  [email-masked]

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 10:37:55 -0500 (CDT)

> Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able

But not "from the original source plus our patches".  That's the
crucial point.

> since I don't have it. But I can recompile LyX since we have an xforms

We don't have an xforms package *freely* available.  If some Motif
vendor decided to start selling packages called motif and motif-dev, we
certainly wouldn't consider moving motif apps into the main
distribution.  Those new packages wouldn't be freely available.

Guy

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 21:18:24 +0200 (MET DST)

> located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is

I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by
teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib
is the correct location.

> contrib (or non-free if they have distribution restrictions).

But with xforms belonging into contrib LyX is compilable by everyone.

Michael

---

From: Dale Scheetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 21:27:09 -0400 (EDT)

> teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib

Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this
source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to
be non-free.

Luck,

Dwarf

------------ If you don't see what you want, just ask --------------

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 16:38 BST

> original may not be touched.  Do we really want to ditch (la)tex?

I've added the following footnote:
<footnote>It is OK for there to be a requirement that modified
versions carry a warning, or that they be released with a different
name or version number, or something similar, because we can comply
with this requirement if necessary.</footnote>

Ian.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 16:32 BST

> original may not be touched.  Do we really want to ditch (la)tex?

Being required to change names is fine, as we can do that if
necessary.

Ian.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 17:10 BST

Michael Meskes writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?"):
...
> Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able

You can't rebuild LyX entirely from source using only packages in the
main Debian distribution.

> >      their own own compiled binaries, at least when they do so as part of a

Fixed the typo.

Ian.

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 96 17:20 BST

Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ?"):
> [...] xforms is improperly
> not distributed). [...]

Sourceless packages are fine to distribute in contrib, so long as the
binaries may be redistributed for profit &c.

Please see the policy manual, chapter 2.

Ian.

---

From: Michael Meskes <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 21:18:52 +0200 (MET DST)

> distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this

That's why there is no source available. :-)

> source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to

It was once decided that binary-only packages belong into contrib.

Michael

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 96 14:19 BST

> source distribution restriction is what makes Xforms' proper location to

Please read chapter 2 of the new policy manual.

Ian.

---

From: "Susan G. Kleinmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 20:30:12 -0400

> Please read chapter 2 of the new policy manual.

This is my synopsis of the relevant parts of Chapter 2:

Packages go into contrib if their copyrights or patents require that they:
a.  allow distribution of no source code 
b.  allow distribution of only some source code, but not all the source code
    needed to compile the program (even given the existence of other sources
    in the Debian distribution).
c.  depend on a non-free or contrib package in order to be used
d.  allow use only for a trial period
e.  lack vital functionality
f.  are installer packages
g.  fail to meet some other policy requirement

Packages go into non-free if their copyrights or patents require that they:
h.  disallow distribution for profit
i.  disallow distribution on certain media
j.  disallow distribution except if special permission is obtained
k.  have "any other onerous conditions".

My reactions:

Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b).

It is not clear either what is meant by condition (k), nor how condition 
(k) differs from condition (g).  Without such a distinction, non-free 
and contrib overlap.

The word "onerous" in condition (k) would seem inconsistent with 
the Debian objective to be "a base upon which value-added 
GNU/Linux distributions can be built."

Susan Kleinmann

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 96 14:37 BST

Susan G. Kleinmann writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on lyx/copyright ? "):
...
> Condition (a) is redundant, given condition (b).

Yes, if you think about them like that.  I haven't expressed it quite
that way.

> (k) differs from condition (g).  Without such a distinction, non-free 

(k) is there as a catch-all, in case someone comes up with another
example of a bad thing in a copyright.

non-free and contrib do overlap - they are intended to.  The way I
have phrased it makes it clear that if a package meets the bad
criteria for needing to be in non-free, and those for contrib, it must
go in non-free.

> GNU/Linux distributions can be built."

I don't understand this at all.

Ian.

---

From: "Susan G. Kleinmann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:53:07 -0400

> I don't understand this at all.

The above several paragraphs actually echo a common theme.  The word
"onerous" is commonly taken to be perjorative; certainly the phrase
"bad criteria" is perjorative.  Therefore one interprets the category 
non-free as perjorative, rather than simply being a statement
of fact that copyright restrictions exist.  The use of such language 
is unnecessary and inconsistent with Debian's purported objective of 
being a base for value-added distributions.  To be plain about it, you don't 
normally go around telling people you think they're bad or their 
ideas are bad, and then expect to attract them to the notion of using 
your software.  

Susan Kleinmann