Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Debian

Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG 280

Posted by michael from the constitutional-convention dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Debian Project, creators of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, has voted to allow amendments to their Social Contract and Free Software Guidelines, as long as the developers agree with a 3:1 majority. The full text of the various amendments can be found in the original call for votes. Debian developer and XFree86 packager Branden Robinson has already proposed an amendment to the Social Contract that removes the requirement to maintain an archive for non-free software or "contrib" software (free software that depends on non-free software to work). Debian could still maintain this archive, but would no longer be required to do so. The proposal also updates the Social Contract to clearly require all works in Debian to meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not just software, which had come up repeatedly in the discussions over the non-free "GNU Free Documentation Licence". Both of these updates have been under consideration for some time, but were waiting on the ratification of the amendment procedure. The Debian Project voted on this amendment using their modified Condorcet voting procedure, which allows voters to rank the choices in order of preference, eliminating the "lesser of two evils" effect common to simple majority voting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG More

Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG

Comments Filter:
  • This move will really help to advance the speed with which debian can move forward, insofar as its "licensing"( if you can call it that ) goals are concerned.

    What's really interesting here is that this moves them a little closer to the way the Gentoo people operate. Take a look at Their Social Contract [gentoo.org] for comparison purposes.

    • Um.... what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:19PM (#7352502) Homepage
      What's really interesting here is that this moves them a little closer to the way the Gentoo people operate. Take a look at Their Social Contract for comparison purposes.

      No. No, not at all. In fact it moves them farther away from Gentoo. In Gentoo's Social Contract, there is nothing explicitly stated about Documentation, but rather refers explicitly to software as binaries or sources. Debian has been working on productive discussions with the FSF over the GFDL for over two years, and this change is a direct result from those discussions. Most Debian Developers feel that documentation qualifies as software, and should be included under the DFSG as well.

      Everything in Gentoo's Social contract is basically directly lifted from Debian's, although they decided not to take it all. The Gentoo people don't operate on nearly the same strict standards of Freedom that Debian does, and the differences in the Social Contracts, including the latest change, demonstrates that. If the Gentoo people decide to move in this direction too, it'll be because of more than two years of hard wrangling on debian-legal.

      • Re:Um.... what? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:28PM (#7352603) Homepage Journal
        I agree. The Debian group would probably use this policy change to remove portions of the section that says
        Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
        We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software. The software in these directories is not part of the Debian system, although it has been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of software packages in these directories and determine if they can distribute that software on their CDs. Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages.
        I don't see them using this power to loosen up on their standards for either software or documentation.

        Bruce

        • Yes, and it's about time too. I'm a little hesitant about the international users issue that kept coming up during the last discussion about removing non-free, but compared to the days of yore when we couldn't contemplate life without netscape, this is a small thing, and will probably fix itself when the need arises. I can almost see it as the project coming to fruition in a way.
        • This question is not tightly related to the current topic, but I thought I could grab this opportunity to ask for a clarification. Item 4 in the Social Contract says:

          Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software


          We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users for operation in many different kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software that is intended to

          • Re:Who is the Debian "User"? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @06:43PM (#7353303) Homepage Journal
            Debian lacks a target group and a common vision for how the Debian OS should work and interact with the user.

            IMO this mission lies with the Debian derivative rather than with Debian. Like Libranet and Knoppix, for example.

            Bruce

          • I see the users of Debian to be the creators of these free and non-free derivative distributions, and the users that are drawn into Linux through them. Bruce mentions two of those distros, but Xandros is the one that specifically comes to my mind.

            (Disclaimer: I am a hardware engineer, and don't really mess much with the innards of software. I just want an OS that is clean and works.)

            The Xandros distribution was and is very appealing to me because of its ease of use and installation (like Lindows), but i
          • The beauty of debian is it targets itself. It doesn't have to pander to anyone but itself. It's arguments are both of meritocracy and philosophical. It could care less if _you_ don't get it. It could care less if you want to spend money on it. It only cares about your man hours and intelectual ability. This is democracy at it's finest.

            Like democracy, debian is advanced citizenship. You get what you give. Most user communities are not allowed this oppertunity. The social contract sets in stone that

  • Heh... (Score:5, Funny)

    by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:03PM (#7352339)
    All this licensing stuff is turning into government with constitutions, amendments, and elections.

    I wonder if this scratches a subconscious need that was previously fulfilled by the complex gameplay of DnD and RPGs that many geeks did as kids?

    I don't want politics, i want software!

    (all in jest, of course)

    • Seriously... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 )
      To make your jest serious: This is the trail that Richard Stallman proceeded down in about 1984. He wanted good software, and felt that the complications of copyright (and the business model that usually came along with copyright) made good software so much more difficult to produce.

      Bruce

      • Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by devphaeton ( 695736 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @06:04PM (#7352955)
        And to make my jest even more serious...

        There is a lot of noise going on as of late regarding GPL vs. SCO, GPL vs. BSD-license, copylefts, copyrights, patents, etc...

        I'll admit that i'm ignorant to a lot of this, maybe blissfully so. Though i can read a lot of posts and reactions of people in debates (i see mainly BSD vs. GPL license wars here and on Usenet, usually from both sides since i use both FreeBSD and Debian) and see that a lot of other people might be as half-cocked clueless as me, i feel like i *should* know and understand it all.

        It nags at me, i feel obligated to pursue it, but damn.... I just can't keep myself interested in licensing and stuff long enough to get anywhere.

        Am i wrong? Or is it best to be left to those with the abilities for this thing?

        • Re:Seriously... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @06:25PM (#7353113) Homepage Journal
          If you want to make a contribution, I'd counsel you to work on what excites you the most. If it puts you to sleep, you might be able to do without it and leave it to others.

          I have some simple rules for licensing that you can use if you don't want to get in too deep. First, make sure that the copyright holders (that's you and anyone else who contribute) own what they are contributing. They can't have cut and pasted from elsewhere, they have to have written the code.

          Then, use the GPL for stuff you do on your free time, and use the BSD license for stuff that someone else pays you for if they don't like the GPL.

          The GPL is sharing with rules, the BSD license is a gift with almost no requirements upon the folks who get the code. It makes sense that if you do the work on your own time, people who modify the work should give you the same rights on their changes that you gave them on the original code - and the GPL requires that. But if you get paid to do the code, BSD is fine - because it's not a gift as far as you are concerned.

          Thanks

          Bruce

          • Actually Bruce, thank you ...

            For your work in Debian, your wisdom and levelheadedness in dealing with SCO, and finally for taking the time to answer my post in a kind and useful way. I am humbled by your example. :o)

          • Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Brandybuck ( 704397 )
            Actually I do it the opposite. If someone pays me, then I'll use the GPL. But stuff that I do on my free time on weekends because it's fun, that I give away with as few strings as a possibly can.

            If someone doesn't like it, then can always pay me to give them a GPL licensed copy of my stuff...
        • For those who find the different licenses confusing, and maybe the whole point of different licenses confusing, I have written a short article explaining some of the basics:

          What are all these licenses? [newtolinux.org.uk] (as part of a series of informative articles to accompany 'technical' tutorials)

      • Re:Seriously... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by macshit ( 157376 ) <[snogglethorpe] [at] [gmail.com]> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @06:55PM (#7353421) Homepage
        But keep in mind that Richard's goal wasn't just good software; he was also mourning the loss of a community that he felt had been caused by software becoming unfree. The community is just as much a goal as the software.

      • Re:Seriously... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        To make your jest serious: This is the trail that Richard Stallman proceeded down in about 1984. He wanted good software, and felt that the complications of copyright (and the business model that usually came along with copyright) made good software so much more difficult to produce.

        Kinda ironic how much time and effort that should be going toward writing software is now consumed by the game of armchair copyright lawyer.

        I want good software, and am sick and tired of having to pass on the right soluti

  • Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:11PM (#7352420) Homepage Journal
    Debian is huge. It's long past the point that non-free could support its own organization.

    When I created the original Debian Social Contract, non-free wouldn't have been self-supporting. But we've had this hypocracy about non-free since then. Non-free is not officially part of Debian, but is maintained as part of Debian, using all of the same facilities and within the same organization. Debian can now afford to be 100% Free Software and no exceptions, and can put non-free somewhere else with people who care about it. APT will handle this very easily, there's no overhead to the user except perhaps to change /etc/apt/sources.list once, which we can do for them with a script.

    Bruce

    • ..., which we can do for them with a script.

      Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?

      • Wouldn't the *script* be free, therefore being eligible for the main Debian archives?

        If you have a problem with it being a script to allow access to non-free packages, write one that will add any apt source to the list, instead of just one for non-free.

      • Re:Non-Free Needs Its Own Organization (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:41PM (#7352723) Homepage Journal
        This is how I see it working.

        Some time before non-free disappears from Debian's mirrors, we'd make some base package require a package containing an installation script that looks to see if the user is presently using the non-free repository. So, everyone who runs an upgrade would get this package, and it's script would run. If the user is using the non-free repository, the user gets a note that it's moving, and is asked if he'd like to reset his apt choices to the new location of non-free or to do without non-free from then on, in which case we'd present the list of packages that would be lost from the system.

        Debian isn't about taking choice s away from people. But that doesn't mean that Debian can't make it's own choices and ask people to find what they want elsewhere.

        Bruce

        • If the user is using the non-free repository

          Sounds like a good use for the VRMS [debian.org] package.
        • I think it makes sense; I think that's actually something that makes Debian kind of cool; is that you can give your system its own (your) personality by modifying the sources.list file.

          I don't think I really understood the possibilites until I discovered apt-get.org. It's a great concept, that you can "tune in" to the types of software that you want/need, and it doesn't all necessarily have to come from the official Debian servers.

          This might give Debian users more choices, actually.

        • I was thinking about the multiplication of debian mirrors lately and the security implication of having a mirror rooted by some evil doers...

          How is it actually managed?
          I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:

          When you first install debian, you do it from a safe source (let's say a CD like OpenBSD or a mirror you _really_ trust). All the packages come with the public key of the maintainer and all package are signed by the package maintainer.
          Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a packa

          • I had this crazy idea that goes something like this:

            Not crazy; in progress. The debian-keyring package contains all the maintainers' public keys, packages are already signed, and I believe dpkg has already been modified to have the ability to verify the signatures. The whole thing will be turned on Real Soon Now; I think it's supposed to be in place for the release of Sarge.

            Therefore, if someone roots a mirror and change a package you'll get a message like SSH would give: the key for package "bla"

      • Wouldn't a script whose only fuction is to point apt to non-free repositories, hence facilitating the installation of non-free software, preclude Debian from being "100% Free Software?" Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?

        Compare it to the current situtation, where the same maintainers use the same keyring and the same servers and the same development boxes and the same mailing lists and the same archive maintenance facilities and the same build daemo

      • Is the script any more "free" than free packages that depend on non-free software to run?

        Yes. The script performs a function and allows others to modify that functionality and redistribute their modifications. It requires no non-free software, and can run on a 100% DFSG-compliant system. The other cannot run without non-free software, period.

        If the program is DFSG-compliant, and requires no DFSG-compliant software to function, it belongs in main.

        If the program is DFSG-complaint, and cannot run without n

    • By the way, I am holding nonfree.org for this purpose.

      Bruce

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:politics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by krmt ( 91422 ) <therefrmhere@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:33PM (#7352647) Homepage
      You would wish that some distro would have its social contract be "To produce a great distribution with the latest software that is stable". Succinct, and what it should be all about.
      Good luck. The latest software isn't stable. It's got lots of hidden bugs. That's what the testing process is for. Different programmers test to different degrees. Obviously the linux kernel is heavily tested, but what about all the little programs that come with Gnome?

      And then once the software is in the hands of the distro makers, they have to package it properly. Now, believe it or not, but packaging something well is tough. It's like programming, so you have to shake the bugs out of that too over time.

      I guess it comes down to a different definition of stable. If you think all software is stable right out of the gate because it runs, then you've got a different definition of stable than most Debian developers. If you want that stuff, there's a version of Debian you can track: it's called unstable (and you can even sprinkle in experimental, if you really have the faith).

      I really don't understand the general Linux user's need to get the latest and greatest at all times. Most of us ran windows for years, and simply waited for Microsoft to say "Ok, it's ready, here you go" every two or more years before upgrading. Debian's release schedule isn't a whole lot different, but you can simply see what's going on behind the scenes, so people tend to get impatient. How quickly we forget.

    • Re:politics (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jaeger ( 2722 ) * on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:34PM (#7352660) Homepage
      I tried [Debian] once - packages were way too old for my taste

      Odds are you'll get flamed by a handful of Debian fanboys and applauded by a handful of Debian haters. I fit squarely in the "Debian fanboy" category, but I'm going to try to stay away from flaming.

      Debian's distribution system has three tiers: stable, testing, and unstable. The stable release is the one you complained about having "way too old" packages, which is fully legitimate -- Debian's stable packages are old. The theory is to maintain a consistent, fully-supported system that is Really Stable, while maintaining the ability to provide security updates when necessary. This is especially useful on production servers, where it's a Bad Idea to change *anything* without contemplating it first. It works well for systems that shouldn't need coddling to maintain; if I were building a Debian system for my mother I'd use stable.

      Obviously, stable won't work for everyone. For those who like the bleeding edge, there's unstable, which contains the Latest and Greatest Software (much of it prerelease; all of it updated frequently). Unstable might break everything, but when it works, you get Mozilla 1.5 without having to think about it and everything New and Improved!

      And then there's testing, which contains all of the New and Improved! packages from unstable after they've had a few weeks to sit and haven't had any bug reports filed against them. Testing is good for those who don't feel compelled to live on the edge but don't want to live in 2001, either.

      Debian isn't for everyone, but that's why Linux is free software -- "free" as in "freedom".

      • scripsit Jaeger:

        And then there's testing, which contains all of the New and Improved! packages from unstable after they've had a few weeks to sit and haven't had any bug reports filed against them.

        I probably deserve the label of `Debian fanboy' (I won't run nothing else...) but even I'm getting a bit tired of Mozilla 1.0. Testing still has 2:1.0.0-0.woody.1. And it's not apparently getting into Testing any time soon, because it can't build on ARM...

      • I know I am opening a can of worms, but I have heard that the problem with Debian is that is sooooo cross-platform that the testing takes longer. I runs on Intel, Power PC, Sparc, Alpha and a lot of strange processors I have never heard. On top of that, it runs not only the Linux kernel, but also on the Hurd and BSD kernels. If it was Intel only, or at least was reduced to two or three platforms, the testing might be faster. After all, if a bug appears only when Linux runs a strange processor and not or "no
        • You can tell if this is true for yourself. Go to bugs.debian.org and look at the critical bugs. See if they are port-related. I frankly doubt it.

          My experience has been that ports only help to isolate bugs that might have been more subtle on the i386 architecture and more difficult to find, but would still be there.

          Bruce

    • Re:politics (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens ( 3872 )
      It's not just politics. Or, I guess I should say that these politics have an engineering reason behind them. It's really hard to produce a great distribution with the latest software that is available when you don't have the right to freely use, modify, and redistribute that software. Other considerations than engineering ones would tend to dominate your choices of what goes in the software.

      I'm the guy who put these policies in writing for Debian. I had the job of building the distribution, and these polici

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Given time, going about building a technically superior distribution that is built on 100% free software is the best solution. If there is a need to mix and match GPL and other free software with non-free and other proprietary software in order to get a technically superior distribution at this point in time, then of course, there is no reason not to do that.

          But over time, if you give it a decade or so, you will be better off having starting those seeds with software the preserves the freedoms that allow t

    • Re:politics (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CentrX ( 50629 )
      Depending on what you're doing, check out the "testing" and "unstable" branches of Debian. They have much newer software packages, but are not in a stable release. Many regard these as more stable than, for instance, a Red Hat "stable" release.
    • Pleasing the unwashed masses is not my task.

      Most of the Debian developers would probably read your sig and decide that it's the best possible answer they can find to your criticism.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • For many at Debian, the attitude is "Viva Free Software", but I'd expect that the majority of developers are more concerned about creating a distribution that "Does Not Suck".

          By adhering to clearly defined licensing guidelines, Debian avoids much of the difficulty that preparers of comercial software must deal with. The developers and maintainers can concentrate on providing good, well packaged software, without worrying about contract obligations, delivery dates, or complex licensing concerns.

          If the age
  • I have one question.

    Is it possible that when Debian restructures the official hierarchy that it shows a PNG Graphic(assuming one isn't using Lynx) of the hierarchy so that when people get to the graphic they get an immediate visual layout of how Debian is organized? From there you can have Key that references apt sources to add to one's own list for specific non-free software providers of debs.

    The image could be updated periodically reflecting the structure and source listings.

    It would make for using Go

  • good news for voting too (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bob_jenkins ( 144606 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:34PM (#7352657) Homepage Journal
    Way to go! These people have been the biggest group on the web for some time seriously debating the mechanics of how to vote. I know they've got the fundamentals right. Their choices and extentions have been well thought out too.

    Now that we have a well-defined best known way to vote, perhaps we can get governments to adopt it for city, state, even national elections. I very much want the US to become more democratic.
    • You mean Condorcet. I guess.

      If you want the US to be less plutocratic, I think you need some changes in the media. People vote according to what they are presented with in the news, and the news here is produced for ratings, rather than as a means of cultivating an educated voter. The Internet was supposed to fix that simply by providing more variety in news programming, but it has not, so far, done so.

      My current idea would be to require of broadcasters, in exchange for their access to spectrum, that they h

    • Like voting? More reasearch [bolson.org] (mine) on what the "best" system is.

      Condorcet doesn't always make the most people the happiest, but it's nicely impervious to several things that can go wrong with elections.
    • Just change the Constitution and there ya go.....

      • Which Constitution do you mean? We changed the Debian one yesterday :) If you mean the U.S. Constitution, it's been amended twenty-seven times already. Once more won't hurt.

        Oh, that reminds me. Some people have complained about Debian being too slow and bureaucratic. Just LOOK at that twenty-seventh amendment:

        Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992

        Now THAT's slow.

  • This is good for Debian! (Score:5, Informative)

    by agwis ( 690872 ) on Thursday October 30, 2003 @05:41PM (#7352729)

    Out of all the distros out there I personally like debian the best, and this is another reason why. With all the alternatives available to the open source community you have to hand it to Debian for allowing users easy freedom of choice. If you want only free software then don't add contrib or non-free to your sources.list. If you want stability and security on your computer, use woody. If you want new software and don't care if it meets free software definitions, use sid with contrib and non-free.

    I have several computers all running debian and each have different setups depending upon what I'm using it for. Debian makes this very easy to do and IMHO, along with apt, is what makes debian better than the other distros. Ultimately this leads to a better separation of choice and still allows anyone to easily configure debian whatever way they want.


    -Pat
  • Look. Debian is good, Debian is great, it IS my favorite linux distribution. Sticking to free software is GOOD.

    However...

    having packages for non-free stuff is good, and NECESSARY, as well. Yes, anyone can make them.. but it really helps having a central repository. IN the real business world, you can only take the need for freedom so far. I love Debian servers, but at some point there is non-free stuff I *need* to run.

    Further... I'm sure everyone has said it before, but Debian really NEEDS to get it's st

    • having packages for non-free stuff is good, and NECESSARY, as well. Yes, anyone can make them.. but it really helps having a central repository. IN the real business world, you can only take the need for freedom so far. I love Debian servers, but at some point there is non-free stuff I *need* to run.

      Well, apt-get.org has been acting as a good central routing point for unofficial packages for quite a while, and it works well. One thing that any business can do is use apt-get.org to find non-free stuff, an

  • // as long as the developers agree with a 3:1 majority.

    well, if they have to have three times as many developers as they have, we're not likely to see very many changes made, are we?

    unless some people are more equal than others...

    (yes, i'm kidding)

  • Anybody wondering... (Score:4, Informative)

    by ninejaguar ( 517729 ) on Friday October 31, 2003 @12:56AM (#7355652)
    ...what a Condorcet [condorcet.org] is? Here's another explanation [eskimo.com].

    "Condorcet's method is one of several pairwise methods, which are great methods for electing people in single-seat elections (president, governor, mayor, etc.). Condorcet's method is named after the 18th century election theorist who invented it. Unlike most methods which make you choose the lesser of two evils, Condorcet's method and other pairwise methods let you rank the candidates in the order in which you would see them elected. The way the votes are tallied is by computing the results of separate pairwise elections between all of the candidates, and the winner is the one that wins a majority in all of the pairwise elections.

    The best result of this is that if there is Candidate A on one extreme who pulls 40% of the vote, Candidate B in the middle who only pulls 20% of the vote, and Candidate C on the other extreme who pulls 40% of the vote, Candidate B will get elected as a compromise. Why? Because in a two-way contest between A and B, B would win with 60% of the vote, and in a two-way contest between B and C, B would also win with 60% of the vote. (Note that if B is a looney billionaire, he might not be able to win separate pairwise elections against anyone, and this would be reflected with Condorcet's method.)

    Condorcet's method lets voters mark their sincere wishes for who they would like to win the election, without having to consider strategy ("I'd vote for Candidate B, but I'm afraid of wasting my vote."). It's really just a logical extension of majority rule when more than two choices are involved."

    = 9J =

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a whim of several billion cells to be you for a while.

Close