Re: Closing bugs bevore the upload is available

[Mike Hommey]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:43:26AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > >> Today I did a update of the system (yes, sid and yes I know
> > >> it can be unstable but...) and the update includes grep where
> > >> no open critical bug was seen. After Boot the system was
> > >> completely broken as of the libpcre dependency.
> > >> 
> > >> So please do not close bugs bevore it is available on
> > >> servers. This break of the system musn't be.
> > 
> > Junichi> Didn't apt-listbugs help you at all ?
> > 
> > AFAIK apt-listbugs only displays open bugs, if the bug is closed
> > then it won't get displayed.
> 
> It will be displayed even when it's closed.  It does have some
> heuristics to avoid showing irrelevant bugs.
> 
>  
> > Ideally apt-listbugs needs to be updated to support the new
> > versioning system in the BTS.
> 
> Taru; we've discussed face-to-face about handling the new BTS
> versioning features last month[1]; how about implementing it?

Just be aware that it might show irrelevent results, cf. bug #334884.

Cheers

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Shall Debian's su conform to other implementations

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:04:47AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005, Bill Allombert wrote:
> > Whatever you choose to do, you need to take care of partial upgrade.

> Not across released stable versions! Since when do we support
> stable/stable+1 mixed systems?

Since always?  It is always expected that, within reason, if a package's
dependencies are satisfied by a given system, that package will function.
This definitely includes partial upgrades between stable and stable+1...
among other things, this is necessary to ensure that a *full* upgrade
between one stable release and the next doesn't fail due to packages being
upgrade out of order.

> Besides, depends/pre-depends and conflicts should be more than enough if
> done right.

Yes, this is what is meant by supporting partial upgrades.  "Supporting
partial upgrades" doesn't mean "any given package should be upgradable on
its own without upgrading any others"; it means "no apt-get install command
should be able to break the system".

> New shadow would conflict with ALL packages that do not support the new
> syntax

Unfortunately, yes; and we saw plenty of occasions in woody->sarge where
conflicts with old packages made the upgrade path more difficult than it
should have been...

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Shall Debian's su conform to other implementations

[Christian Perrier]

> > New shadow would conflict with ALL packages that do not support the new
> > syntax
> 
> Unfortunately, yes; and we saw plenty of occasions in woody->sarge where
> conflicts with old packages made the upgrade path more difficult than it
> should have been...


Up to now, we have identified pbuilder (fixed since 0.129 on Aug. 16th
according to Junichi) and dchroot (no news from the maintainer up to
now).

My first analysis and understanding is that conflicting with these
shoudn't break the upgrade path that much.

Anyway, I'm highly confident in Nicolas François (who's in charge of
this behaviour change handling in the shadow team) to do his best for
handling this change as smoothly as possible.

For instance, we already talked about a possible double behaviour of
su, which could depend on an env variable sur as POSIXLY_CORRECT



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

eidviewer menu entry

[Wouter Verhelst]

Hi,

Maintaining the belpic package, I recently found out that they hid their
license somewhere else. Since I hadn't found their license document
previously, I didn't package what I thought was being distributed
without a license; however, now that I found out that they do have a
license, and that it is DFSG-free, I decided to package the 'other'
bits, too.

For completeness, the belpic source package contains software to manage
the Belgian electronic ID card; previously I'd only packaged the
modified OpenSC code that they distribute, which allows a user to read
out the X.509 certificates that are on the card.

The next upload (which is in NEW already) adds libeid and the eidviewer;
the former allows a programmer to read out identity information and
pictures from the card; the latter provides a GUI to interactively view
the data on the card, with the ability to store it to disk and to print
it out, if necessary.

Since eidviewer is an interactive application, I want to add it to the
Debian menu, but I'm having problems finding the right place to put it;
none of the categories really fit. The 'Apps/Viewers' category is listed
in the menu sub-policy as being for 'image viewers', which eidviewer
isn't. There's a category 'Apps/Tools', but the description of that
category suggests small things like dockapps or so, which eidviewer
isn't. There's 'Apps/Technical', which claims to be for 'technical
stuff', a nice and vague term that officially applies to every piece of
software patented in the EU, but really rather unhelpful.

IOW, there's a long list of categories, but I don't feel like any of
them is really appropriate.

Suggestions?

-- 
The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the
pavement is precisely one bananosecond


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: testing migration: wtf?

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 04:30:59PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 08:58:35PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>> What is happening with testing migration of my package, sork-passwd?
>> The various "testing migration" pages seem to be all confused:

>> - http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?package=sork-passwd doesn't give
>>   me the "excuses" link anymore

> That's because it's not longer in need of an update, because the
> latest version is in testing.

This page itself was listing an older version in testing. I suppose I
must have caught it in a moment where its database was
inconsistent. It now indeed shows latest version in testing.

Thanks for everything,

-- 
Lionel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: eidviewer menu entry

[Kevin Mark]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Hi,
> 

> 
> The next upload (which is in NEW already) adds libeid and the eidviewer;
> the former allows a programmer to read out identity information and
> pictures from the card; the latter provides a GUI to interactively view
> the data on the card, with the ability to store it to disk and to print
> it out, if necessary.
> 

> 
> IOW, there's a long list of categories, but I don't feel like any of
> them is really appropriate.
> 
> Suggestions?
> -- 
Hi Wouter,
These things are about user identity and authentication for possibly
bank transactions or login like cryptographics tokes, no? So, wouldn't
they be in the same catagory as pgp or openct thingy?
cheers,
Kev
-- 
counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted!
  `$' $' 
   $  $  _
 ,d$$$g$  ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b
,$P'  `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$'  `$ $  "'   `$ $$' `$
$$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P""  $ $$
`$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$
 `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P"' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $.  ,$.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Resignation and orphan list

[Marc Haber]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:38:11 -0600, Jeroen van Wolffelaar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 03:23:08PM -0800, Chip Salzenberg wrote:
>> Branden Robinson, the DPL, is aware of this organizational failure.  But he
>> has done nothing effective to repair it.  He has suggested that another DD,
>> Jeroen van Wolffelaar, has the authority to make keyring changes -- an odd
>> situation, given the [EMAIL PROTECTED] alias, but no matter -- but Mr. van
>> Wolffelaar has made no more progress than Mr. Troup has: that is to say, 
>> none.
>
>I'm sorry to hear that you think resigning is the only option.

Considering that James' reluctance to do the work he has volunteered
to do is a recurring issue in the Debian project, and that this issue
has not yet been addressed by the new DPL who was elected in the hope
that he would try solving some of our most pressing issues, I can
understand Chip's train of thought.

It is, however, really a pity. Please try to prevent things like this
from happening again. It is a shame to see people quit because other
people do not do their work.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Shall Debian's su conform to other implementations

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Besides, depends/pre-depends and conflicts should be more than enough if
> > done right.
> 
> Yes, this is what is meant by supporting partial upgrades.  "Supporting

Ah, ok.  THAT is what I meant too, in a roundabout way.  So we're in
agreement.

> partial upgrades" doesn't mean "any given package should be upgradable on
> its own without upgrading any others"; it means "no apt-get install command
> should be able to break the system".

Too bad this isn't really true, it is usually a bad idea to mix
oldstable+stable for more time than what is strictly necessary to upgrade
the entire system to stable. Not all dependencies are always correctly
expressed as versioned dependencies metadata.  So you can get breakages that
the maintainers don't know about and would never test for explicitly.

The people doing backports actually help a LOT to track down these bugs as
they happen :-)

> > New shadow would conflict with ALL packages that do not support the new
> > syntax
> 
> Unfortunately, yes; and we saw plenty of occasions in woody->sarge where
> conflicts with old packages made the upgrade path more difficult than it
> should have been...

Unfortunately it is all we can do to insure proper consistency.

-- 
  "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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Resignation and uploads

[Hamish Moffatt]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 03:09:22PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> You're not the only person requesting key updates, and there's a queue.
> Probably because there've been issues of higher importance (such as
> upgrading project machines from Woody to Sarge, or making sure the SPARC
> and ARM buildd hosts get their logs signed, etc). Since your initial
> update, James found time to work his way partway through that queue, but
> hasn't reached the end (or, for that matter, your position in the queue)
> yet.

Wouter, consider this issue from the other side. How long should a
developer have to wait for their key to be updated, a two minute task?
Why is five weeks reasonable? (More, since it's still not done.)

Why do all of the tasks you mention depend on one person? There's no
obvious reason why they couldn't be distributed to at least four people.
For example, don't we have other Debian system admins who could do the
sarge upgrades? (And since sarge has been out since June, why is it
urgent now?) Don't we have other buildd admins for those arches?
(Isn't this a prerequisite for an etch release?)

I don't understand why we make it hard to contribute to this project.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: eidviewer menu entry

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 06:33:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
[eidviewer menu category]
> These things are about user identity and authentication for possibly
> bank transactions or login like cryptographics tokes, no?

Well, yes and no.

It's supposedly possible to turn the X.509 key on the eID card into
something that can be used as an SSH key (though I wouldn't know exactly
how); also, with the (provided) mozilla plugins you can use it to sign
emails, etc.

However, the eidviewer (what this query is about) has nothing to do with
all that. A typical use case for the eidviewer is a hotel reception
where identity information needs to be stored and/or printed out. That's
something entirely different...

> So, wouldn't they be in the same catagory as pgp or openct thingy?

I could do that, except that none of the binaries in opensc, openct, or
gnupg have a menu entry.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: eidviewer menu entry

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Wouter Verhelst wrote:


On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 06:33:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
 


On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
   


[eidviewer menu category]
 


These things are about user identity and authentication for possibly
bank transactions or login like cryptographics tokes, no?
   



Well, yes and no.

It's supposedly possible to turn the X.509 key on the eID card into
something that can be used as an SSH key (though I wouldn't know exactly
how); also, with the (provided) mozilla plugins you can use it to sign
emails, etc.

However, the eidviewer (what this query is about) has nothing to do with
all that. A typical use case for the eidviewer is a hotel reception
where identity information needs to be stored and/or printed out. That's
something entirely different...

 


So, wouldn't they be in the same catagory as pgp or openct thingy?
   



I could do that, except that none of the binaries in opensc, openct, or
gnupg have a menu entry.

 


What about th eGUI frontends? For me, GnomePGP is in Apps -> Tools.


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: eidviewer menu entry

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 08:54:38AM -0500, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 06:33:07AM -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
> >>So, wouldn't they be in the same catagory as pgp or openct thingy?
> >
> >I could do that, except that none of the binaries in opensc, openct, or
> >gnupg have a menu entry.
>
> What about th eGUI frontends? For me, GnomePGP is in Apps -> Tools.

Oh, must've missed that. Well, Apps/Tools it is, then -- unless someone
comes up with a better option.

-- 
.../ -/ ---/ .--./ / .--/ .-/ .../ -/ ../ -./ --./ / -.--/ ---/ ..-/ .-./ / -/
../ --/ ./ / .--/ ../ -/ / / -../ ./ -.-./ ---/ -../ ../ -./ --./ / --/
-.--/ / .../ ../ --./ -./ .-/ -/ ..-/ .-./ ./ .-.-.-/ / --/ ---/ .-./ .../ ./ /
../ .../ / ---/ ..-/ -/ -../ .-/ -/ ./ -../ / -/ ./ -.-./ / -./ ---/ .-../
---/ --./ -.--/ / .-/ -./ -.--/ .--/ .-/ -.--/ .-.-.-/ / ...-.-/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6 [was: Re: DebConf6: Call For Papers]

[Andreas Schuldei]

sorry for replying to this only today. i had been busy preparing
for a talk i was giving yesterday at a conf. 

* Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-11-10 01:08:49]:
> > given your knowledge level of how debconf intents to handle
> > things and the way you escalate this issue gives me the idea that
> > you mainly want to raise a stink and create unrest.
> 
> First of all, it is *not at all* my intention to raise stinks or create
> unrest.
> If I gave the impression of being rude, I apologize: I didn't want to.
> I am not an English native speaker, hence I may have chosen the wrong
> words or style when drafting my message; moreover I may have
> misunderstood something when reading the C4P (Call For Papers).

no, you could have asked on the debconf6-team mailinglist, for
example. trying to get the largest possible audience by sending
this to d-d and d-l is both addressing the wrong audience and
trying to raising a stink.


> I visited http://debconf.org/ and failed to find any other relevant
> information about paper licensing, apart from the C4P itself.
> If you can point me to some URL where I can get first-hand info about
> how DebConf organizers plan to handle this kind of things, I would
> appreciate it.

you could have look at the archives of the debconf6-team
mailinglist where in
http://liw.iki.fi/lists/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg00169.html
it says 

"btw, the licence situation (of the talks and videos) will be
taken care of in COMAS (our conference management system)
directly, something like "people who'll commit talks will have to
choose a (proper) licence at commit time"."

the current plan is to have a drop down menu where people can
choose the license they want, very much like when they chose a
license for an alioth project.

> I think you are involved (!) and I did raise this issue with you
> privately (end of last August), 

yes, then you complained about the way the license and
distribution of the talks had been handled, that they were not
available from the debconf.org server any more (due to a
breakin). That is how i perceived it, at least. you did not make
any constructive suggestions at any point. (and how could you,
only refering to debconf5?)

> I really appreciate your efforts to organize the best conference you
> can. I really *love* the idea of a conference entirely dedicated to
> Debian, to be held in a different place each time.
> That's why I consider this issue as an important one: every DebConf is
> an event through which we get public attention and can thus spread our
> philosophy. The message really works better if we act consistently with
> our philosophy, IMHO.

do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own,
when we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas
(among others). will we only permit ideas from people that
already share out view of DFSG-free?

> > You might also think about the organizers options when a speaker
> > surprisingly NOT picks a DFSG free license,
> 
> If the rules mandate a DFSG-free license (as I suggest), I think
> the only option for the organizers is to not include the
> paper/presentation/handout in the conference proceedings and to not
> distribute it through the conference website, until the licensing issue
> is solved.
> Just like a Debian package doesn't enter main, until it meets Policy
> requirements (DFSG-freeness being one of them).

yes, and i guess it will have consequences when speakers choose a
non-free lisenese for their talk. It will reduce their chances to
get a slot.

> > or declares before the audience that his
> > talk must not be distributed.
> 
> In that case the talk cannot be distributed through the conference
> website or in the proceedings.
> But this holds even if you do not mandate a DFSG-free license.
> 
> Actually the C4P already requires some permissions from the authors:

the point is that the authors can violate the (informal)
agreement given on the website and in a last minute action
deliver a talk with an other license then aggreed uppon. We (the
lynch mob) could wrestle down the speaker, beat her up, smash her
notebook and carry her outside for further treatment, i guess. or
something similar. (c:

(attention! joke!)


> | Debconf requires non-exclusive publication rights to papers,
> | presentations, and any additional handouts or audio/visual materials
> | used in conjunction with the presentation.
> 
> Hence, you already have to plan what to do, when an author does not
> fulfill the C4P requirements.
> Correct me, if I'm wrong.

and so we do (c:

they are not very specific, so far, though.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Resignation and orphan list

[Olaf van der Spek]

On 11/11/05, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Considering that James' reluctance to do the work he has volunteered
> to do is a recurring issue in the Debian project, and that this issue
> has not yet been addressed by the new DPL who was elected in the hope
> that he would try solving some of our most pressing issues, I can
> understand Chip's train of thought.
>
> It is, however, really a pity. Please try to prevent things like this
> from happening again. It is a shame to see people quit because other
> people do not do their work.

I think this is not the only case of 'issues' with someone not doing
the work he has volunteered to do.
Aren't there guidelines/policies in Debian on how to deal with such issues?

Re: Accepted lynx 2.8.5-2sarge1 (source powerpc)

[Thomas Dickey]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:10:08AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Sat,  8 Oct 2005 09:23:11 +0200
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source powerpc
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge1
> Distribution: stable-security
> Urgency: high
> Maintainer: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Changed-By: Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Description: 
>  lynx   - Text-mode WWW Browser
> Changes: 
>  lynx (2.8.5-2sarge1) stable-security; urgency=high
>  .
>* Non-maintainer upload by the Security Team
>* Applied patch by Ulf Härnhammar to fix buffer overflow that can lead
>  to arbitrary code execution [WWW/Library/Implementation/HTMIME.c,
>  CAN-2005-3120]

I wrote the patch.  Ulf reported the problem.

-- 
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net


pgpEOalD0Jl71.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
>  said: 
[...]
> > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
> > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
> > year.

I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].

I was willing to get in touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince
you to relicense the paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found
the time to do so...

> 
> I was not aware  that you were soliciting opinions. If you
>  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion
>  after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my
>  rectitude was implicit approval.
[...]
> > and the advocacy and arguments about the DFSG are more likely to
> > have a long term effect than the license on any paper presented at a
> > conference.
> 
> Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
>  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of
>  hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. 

It's my opinion, as well.
That is exactly what I meant when I talked about acting "consistently
with our philosophy" in my reply[2] to Andreas Schuldei (earlier in this
thread).

[1] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[2] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

-- 
:-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
..
  Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4



pgpFjISHdE7aF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: gnome-swallow_1.2-2_source.changes REJECTED

[Josselin Mouette]

Le vendredi 11 novembre 2005 à 23:19 +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo a
écrit :
>   Sorry, Joss, but I can't believe disk space can be a problem nowadays.
> Of course you can be short of disk space, but a 160GB HDD is quite
> affordable, and you can cache Debian lot of times there.

I can't believe I'm reading this.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: gnome-swallow_1.2-2_source.changes REJECTED

[Josselin Mouette]

Le samedi 12 novembre 2005 à 02:29 +0100, Pierre THIERRY a écrit :
> And I see a rationale for allowing them: what prevents a DD to upload
> binaries that include exploits or some trojan code, along with a clean
> source?

It was already suggested to accept only source+binary uploads, but to
rebuild the binaries on the upload's architecture anyway.
-- 
 .''`.   Josselin Mouette/\./\
: :' :   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
`. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

[David Schmitt]

On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software A
> >> is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said
> >> tools,
>
> Hmm. What about software  bits of the package (maintainer
>  scripts, added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright
>  by Debian developers -- do they count?

Upon rereading my sentence there, I see that it doesn't parse as correct 
english. I tried to express my belief, that packaging a software with Debian 
tools does not make the software itself a derived work. The other question is 
whether the package as a whole constitutes more than a "medium of 
distribution" but I believe it customary that maintainer scripts follow the 
upstream license, which alleviates this problem usually.


Regards, David
-- 
- hallo... wie gehts heute?
- *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch*
- gott sei dank kommunizieren wir über ein septisches medium ;)
 -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15

keyTouch package

[Marvin Raaijmakers]

Is there a volunteer to create a package for keyTouch 2?
Website: http://keytouch.sf.net

(I don't know if this is the right mailing list for asking this)

- Marvin Raaijmakers

Bug#338784: ITP: openrpt -- SQL report writer

[Michael Meskes]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: openrpt
  Version : 1.1.1beta
  Upstream Author : Chris Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ned Lilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Pierce Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://openrpt.sourceforge.net/
* License : GPL
  Description : SQL report writer

OpenRPT is a graphical report writer and rendering engine using the
QT-PostgreSQl connector to access a database. It consist of a writer and
a renderer module.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (100, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.14-1-686
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: better init.d/* : who carres ?

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Sat, Aug 27, 2005 at 02:16:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > And while dash is also optional, all *correctly* written /bin/sh
>> > scripts should work with dash too.
>> 
>> That's incorrect.  A correctly written /bin/sh script is allowed to
>> use Debian programs (including, say, test) and expect to get the
>> Debian versions.  Please read the thread on the policy list from quite
>> a while ago.
>
> (Sorry for an extremely late reply, found this sorted into the wrong
>  mailbox):
>
> test is in /usr/bin/ (together with [), thus at the very least
> init-scripts cannot rely on behaviour provided by /usr/bin/test,
> but make do with what /bin/sh provides, which limits you to what
> POSIX-test (e.g. dash) provides.

I still believe you are incorrect.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: keyTouch package

[Christoph Haas]

On Saturday 12 November 2005 19:28, Marvin Raaijmakers wrote:
> Is there a volunteer to create a package for keyTouch 2?
> Website: http://keytouch.sf.net

Please file an RFP (request for package). That's the best way to find a 
packager.

Documentation at: http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/

 Christoph
-- 
~
~
".signature" [Modified] 1 line --100%--1,48 All


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

New iproute in unstable

[Alexander Wirt]

Hi folks, 

its a long long time ago that iproute2 got an upstream update. I took over
the package from Andreas and decided to try a new upstream version. As I
don't want to break other peoples networking it has been uploaded to
experimental. I would be very happy if some people would give
iproute-20051007 a try and give me some feedback. 

Have fun 
Alex



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: New iproute in unstable

[Alexander Wirt]

Alexander Wirt schrieb am Samstag, den 12. November 2005:

Uhm its too late... The subject is of course misleading, it has been uploaded
to experimental. 

Alex




signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Resignation and uploads

[Marc Haber]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:09:22 +0100, Wouter Verhelst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, and here's something else to ponder: Maybe, just maybe, James has
>more time to go to Ubuntu below zero than he has to handle keyring
>updates because he prioritizes by what gets the bills paid. As most of
>us do, I suppose.

If he does not have the time to do the jobs he has volunteered to do,
he should ask for help.

Greetings
Marc

-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Re: Request: Source for parts of GNU/Solaris

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:12:18 +0100, David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> On Saturday 12 November 2005 05:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> >> To be more specific: I don't believe that the fact that software
>> >> A is being packaged with Debians tools is a derived work of said
>> >> tools,
>> 
>> Hmm. What about software bits of the package (maintainer scripts,
>> added utilities, prompting infrastructure ) under copyright by
>> Debian developers -- do they count?

> Upon rereading my sentence there, I see that it doesn't parse as
> correct english. I tried to express my belief, that packaging a
> software with Debian tools does not make the software itself a
> derived work. The other question is whether the package as a whole
> constitutes more than a "medium of distribution" but I believe it
> customary that maintainer scripts follow the upstream license, which
> alleviates this problem usually.

Customary, but not required. My maintainer scripts often use a
 compatible, but not identical, license.  And, obviously, the
 copyright owner is different.

manoj
-- 
Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 15:36:39 +0100, Andreas Schuldei
 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 
  
> do we limit personal freedom of speakers in favour of our own, when
> we prescribe a license? debconf is about exchange of ideas (among
> others). will we only permit ideas from people that already share
> out view of DFSG-free?


Err, Why not? Why are software bits that represent a talk at a
 conference treated any differently than software bits that represent
 documentation or software bits that represent executable software?

This line of argument you are using reminds me of the faction
 of Alex Yukhimets. That was a vocal group of developers back in '96
 and '97, and espoused the idea that in order to be the best OS ever,
 and to maximize our utility to the users, we should not just permit
 software from people that shared our views.

Indeed, the argument goes, in order to maximize utility to end
 users (as opposed to middlemen repackaging our product), Debian
 should be stuffed as full of software as possible, even if installing
 a Debian OS  was a slew of click through EULA's. 

As any one connect with Debian would know (unless they have
 been in a closet for the best part of the last decade), that we
 rejected the view that sheer utilitarianism and convenience and even
 participation from non-free software authors transcended our views and
 commitment to the freedom of information, and software.

Would you care to expound why the same criteria that extends
 to software bits representing documentation, code, executable, etc,
 should not extend to the software bits representing conference
 papers? How is the community not harmed by having non-free papers but
 not harmed by having non-free code? non-free documentation?

manoj
-- 
You will win success in whatever calling you adopt.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Francesco Poli]

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

> Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
[...]
> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
> 
> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.

Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
distributable.
Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main.
Is this sad?
Quite the opposite, IMHO.

> 
> >> Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
> >> stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this
> >> thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.
> 
> > Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better
> > and still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore
> > should.
> 
> I fully disagree, also with your implied assertion that wanting the
> author to give up more rights than necessary is "better" for the
> purpose of a conference.

I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
"giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
is something wrong or inappropriate.

I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because
I want more freedom for the end-users (conference attendees *and* the
rest of the planet: remember that the papers will be published
somewhere, otherwise there's no use in writing them, since the speakers
are going to give a talk on their subject, not to publicly *read* their
papers!).

Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we
lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.
Hence I want to promote DFSG-free licensing for documentation (and other
non-program works).
Since the Debian project (luckily) rejects non-free works from its main
archive, a DEBian CONFerence (isn't that the meaning of DebConf?) seems
to be the ideal event where to promote DFSG-compliance...

> 
> > It was merely a statement that no one is forcing anyone to license
> > their works in a particular manner, merely that the organizers
> > (which to avoid confusion, doesn't include me) of the conference
> > determine what the minimal set of permisions they need to do their
> > jobs is. [Not that you should take your ball and go home.[1] ;-)]
> 
> You and Fransesco appear to want the conference organizers to require
> _more_ permissions than what they have already decided are the minimal
> set of permissions they need to do their job.

Yes, in order to give enough permissions to the end-users to call the
papers DFSG-free.
If a paper/presentation/handout is interesting enough (I hope every
author thinks his/her is, otherwise he/she would not give a talk at
DebConf!), someone could modify it (in order to update it, improve it,
translate it into another spoken language, ...) and reuse it (to give a
talk in another conference, or to build a useful HOWTO, or whatever...).
This mechanism would enable further spreading of good documentation on
the subjects we care of.

Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!   :-|
These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here...
How could we arrive to the point I have to explicitly state them?  :-(

> 
> And I cannot see any argument that a conference needs more permission
> than the right to distribute verbatim copies of the papers and
> presentations.

I believe to have just presented one of the arguments.

> 
> > I assume that the right thing is having the works licensed under a
> > DFSG free license; granted, we've disagreed on numerous occasions
> > whether that truly is the right thing or not...
> 
> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be
> part of an operating system that anybody depends on;

As has already been replied: "says who?".
Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian.
Why not?

> nobody will have
> a need to go about changing them.

Again: "says who?".
Many typos and mistakes may be fixed.
Some parts may be improved.
Some parts may be updated, as time goes on.
What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
document.

Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted.

> This is a different situation from
> documentation of code that _is_ in the operating system.

You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and
documentation in the OS) may overlap.
And that a member of one set may be modified enough (if legal permission
is granted) to become member of the other set.

> Documentation
> has to be kept up to date as the software it documents changes;

What do you think DebConf papers will talk about?
Cooking?
Or rather Debian-related software?

I would say more often the latter than the former...  ;

Bug#338808: ITP: dtv -- a GTK+ based RSS video aggregator

[Uwe Hermann]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: dtv
  Version : 0.7
  Upstream Author : Participatory Culture <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://participatoryculture.org/
* License : GPL
  Description : a GTK+ based RSS video aggregator

DTV is a platform for internet television and video. An intuitive
interface lets users subscribe to channels, watch video, and build
a video library.


Uwe.
-- 
Uwe Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.crazy-hacks.org
http://www.it-services-uh.de  | http://www.phpmeat.org
http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org | http://www.holsham-traders.de


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
>> non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
>> I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.

> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> distributable.

As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.

> Debian requires more than that in order to let something enter main.
> Is this sad?

No. I'm not saying at all that papers that are not DFSG-free should
enter main. What gave you that idea?

> I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
> is something wrong or inappropriate.

I am unable to comprehend why you think there is such an implication.

By licencing things in a DFSG-free manner one needs to give up the
right to prevent others from distributing modified versions of the
work. That is a legal fact, not a matter of opinion.

How you can go from a statement of this legal fact to a value
judgement (which the words "wrong" and "inappropriate" are) is beyond
me.

> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because
> I want more freedom for the end-users

It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors to
do so. But that is something different from saying that papers with
a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a conference
simply because their licensing does not live up to your ideals.

> Papers are (most often) documentation: I think that, recently, we
> lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.

If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.

> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!   :-|

We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
documentation to be distributed in main.

> These considerations should be seen as well known and obvious here...

They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license their
software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that software in
this world exists already and already has whatever license its author
is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free it is great, and it
can go into main. If it is not, it can (sometimes, guided by purely
practical considerations) be distributed in non-free.

>> How do you conclude that? The conference papers are not going to be
>> part of an operating system that anybody depends on;

> As has already been replied: "says who?".

Says I. Making the proceedings into a package would be pure archive
bloat. A website is much superior for that purpose.

> Some papers could become useful documentation packaged for Debian.

In those cases we should consider their merits as documentation,
_irrespective_ of whether they are also Debconf papers or not.

A paper that is not DFSG-free cannot be used as documentation - this
holds whether or not it is a Debconf paper, and it does not become
DFSG-free simply by being rejected from Debconf.

>> nobody will have a need to go about changing them.

> Again: "says who?".

Says the laws of physics. The conference proceedings is a record of
what was presented at the conference at a definite moment in the past,
and what happened at that moment is not going to change.

> What is born as a paper, can become (part of) a HOWTO or similar
> document.
> Certainly this will never happen, if no permission to modify is granted.

And rejecting the paper from the conference is not going to change that.

>> This is a different situation from documentation of code that _is_
>> in the operating system.

> You seemingly fail to see that the two sets (conference papers and
> documentation in the OS) may overlap.

Of course they may *overlap*. That is fine. But the fact that a paper
is not in the overlap is no reason to reject it.

> What do you think DebConf papers will talk about?

Debian in general. That includes, but is certainly not limited to,
individual pieces of software.

> Papers are generally written *before* the conference takes place, not
> *after* (or does DebConf work the other way around?).
> How can papers talk about "what happened at the conference"?

Because the paper is what is presented at the conference.

>> I don't see how _anyone_ are better served by having an empty slot in
>> the conference instead of a paper, simply because the paper is not
>> modifiable.

> If you see how users are better served by having a non-free package
> moved out of main and possibly not distributed at all by the Debian
> infrastructure (e

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 02:39:52 +0100, Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Scripsit Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:45:35 +0100 Henning Makholm wrote:

>>> The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>>> copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>>> accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>>> copies.  I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>>> that.

>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.


> As does Debian. We just label the non-free software such that users
> have an easy way to be sure that they are not using it.

Hmm. Not as part of Debian. Not on a CD. Indeed, nothing
 officially part of Debian can even depend on such non-free materiel. 

I think if the non-free GR were to be re-raised, I for one
 have changed my mid and would want Debian to not host the non-free
 packages; since I see I was wrong about things being clear about what
 is or is not part of the Debian OS.

>> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner
>> because I want more freedom for the end-users

> It's your right to want that, and you are free to encourage authors
> to do so. But that is something different from saying that papers
> with a cogent technical contribution should be rejected from a
> conference simply because their licensing does not live up to your
> ideals.

Well, a conference that is not affiliated with Debian, such a
 requirement is not tenable, that is true. But if such a conference
 uses the Debian trademark, we can indeed ask that our core values,
 as enshrined in our social contract, be respected.

If there is ever a collection of papers that appear to be a
 product of the Debian project, or seem to be endorsed by it, I suspect
 we can ask for the spirit of the social contract be not blatantly
 violated. 


If we are talking about organizations unconnected to Debian, or
 ones not using our Mark, than we have no leg to stand on. In that
 case, this thread is off topic here.

> If there's a lack of documentation, by all means encourage people to
> write some free documentation. However, I do not think that is
> furthered in particular by rejecting papers at at conference.


>> Oh my goodness, I'm explaining code reuse and the strengths of free
>> software on _two_ Debian mailing lists!  :-|

> We are talking about conference papers. Not code, not software, not
> documentation to be distributed in main.

Why should software bits that represent papers be treated any
 differently from software bits that represent documentation or
 software bits that represent code? I have failed to find a rationale
 for such a distinction. 


> They do not mean that we _require_ of anybody that they license
> their software under a DFSG-free license. Our position is that
> software in this world exists already and already has whatever
> license its author is willing to grant. If the license is DFSG-free
> it is great, and it can go into main. If it is not, it can
> (sometimes, guided by purely practical considerations) be
> distributed in non-free.

Wong. We say that such code may go into Debian if and only if
 the license is DFSG free.

manoj
-- 
Fat Liberation: because a waist is a terrible thing to mind.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Because sometimes one feels the need to fight for what is
>  right? Even if people feel far more comfortable with just sweeping
>  stuff under the carpet, and not brought out in the open?

You know, I was going to say something like "fighting, fighting,
fighting; why isn't coding good enough", but to be honest, I don't
really believe that anyway, or I wouldn't be subscribed to this list.

But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up for
our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying to avoid
those issues. Because insisting non-free stuff not appear at debconf seems
like trying to avoid acknowledging its existence in the same manner as
"sweeping stuff under the carpet", rather than having the non-free stuff
appear and trying to convince possibly disagreeable folks that the DFSG's
terms really are worth following no matter what your goals.

The world at large has lots of non-free licenses for content -- if we
wanted to run away from that fact and avoid it, wouldn't we create a
little enclave of our own with guards at the gate telling everyone who
doesn't meet our standards to go back home, in the same way debconf is?

(Hrm, I'm actually not sure why I chose the CC license now; I thought
I remembered the dc5 CFP said papers had to be GPLed or CCed, and that
tweaking all the mindless DFSG bigots by licensing my paper in a way
that's adequately free, yet not DFSG-free would be fun. But the dc5 CC
stuff was actually just for the recordings, afaics, so maybe that wasn't
it, or maybe I was just confused. Oh well)

> > My blog's licensed under the CC No-derivs/non-commerical license for
> > much the same reasons as most of RMS's writings aren't DFSG-free;
> > but that's fine -- I'm not trying to get them to become the basis of
> > a developer community or similar, and that's why I'm not bothered by
> > not having comments on my blog, either.
> And, thankfully, they do not come with the imprimatur of the
>  Debian project, as Debconf seems to.

My blog's aggregated on planet.debian.org; these lists posts (that
aren't explicitly licensed at all, let alone DFSG-freely) are archived
on lists.debian.org, and bug related conversations (which likewise are
generally only implicitly licensed) are archived on bugs.debian.org.

Of these, debconf probably is the one that makes least use of the
"imprimatur of the Debian project", being hosted at debconf.org.

> If Debian lends it names to a compilation of papers
>  distributed by it, such as it may be construed as the compilation
>  product of the Debian project, or in any way part of Debian, we are
>  constrained to have that compilation be free.

In the same way that non-free, which is distributed by DEbian, can be
construed as the product of the Debian project or in any way part of
Debian, then we're constrained to have non-free be free?

That's a deeply erroneous argument, both at a factual level, and as
advocacy.

It's far more effective to advocate for something by demonstrating
you're not prejudiced against the alternatives, and simply in favour
of the best thing winning, and that you, personally, think the best
thing is free software. You not only get your point across, but you
also get to establish that you're not in denial about the strengths of
your opposition and that your judgement and arguments can be listened
to without having to filter out too much self-serving bias.

> If, of course, Debconf is a independent entity, not related to
>  Debian, then I have no opinion, [...]

Which strikes me as odd; personally, I think everyone should be doing
DFSG-free software and free content, whether they're related to Debian
or not. So I wonder if that attitude isn't part of giving up on the fight.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually accept a
> > non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified copies.
> > I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than that.
> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> distributable.

Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free stuff
from the free stuff. And heck, you could pretty easily come up with a
definition of "free" that's either more strict than Debian (excluding
the advertising clause or dropping the "changes as patches" dispensation,
eg), or more liberal (that would include the Affero license or the GFDL,
perhaps). Neither of those would be inherently unjustifiable, they'd
just be different tradeoffs to what Debian's made. But calling them
"non-free" in some absolute sense just isn't terribly meaningful.

> > >> Debian distributes lots of things that aren't DFSG-free -- not only
> > >> stuff in non-free, but also stuff on lists.debian.org (like this
> > >> thread), stuff on bugs.debian.org, and stuff on planet.debian.org.
> > > Those examples are primarily a case of not being able to do better
> > > and still function; here I believe we can do better, and therefore
> > > should.

I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.

> > I fully disagree, also with your implied assertion that wanting the
> > author to give up more rights than necessary is "better" for the
> > purpose of a conference.
> I disagree with your calling "licensing in a DFSG-free manner" as
> "giving up rights": this seems to imply that releasing DFSG-free works
> is something wrong or inappropriate.

Uh, licensing in a DFSG-free manner *is* giving up rights. You might as
well disagree with entropy or conservation of energy.

It's giving up the exclusive rights to control distribution of the
work you created -- in the case of the BSD license, asking nothing but
acknowledgement in return, in the case of copyleft licenses, asking only
that others who contribute to the work do the same. We shouldn't forget
what an enormous act of generosity that is.

> I would like to see more authors licensing in a DFSG-free manner because

Even if for no other reason, promoting generosity is a wonderful thing.
On the other hand, requiring it isn't -- that becomes an act of
selfishness on our own behalf.

> Papers are (most often) documentation:

No, they're not. Papers are radically different to documentation --
when you write a manpage you don't have to worry about standing up in
front of a hundred people as well.

> I think that, recently, we
> lack DFSG-free documentation more than DFSG-free programs.

That's not solved by bundling a paper in with the program; most
particularly because papers are /hard/ to write, and that makes them
hard to update, which in turn makes them obsolescent.

Papers are to help people understand the talk; sometimes they might
do more than that and perhaps even warrant inclusion in the distro,
other times that goal alone is hard enough.

> Hence I want to promote DFSG-free licensing for documentation (and other
> non-program works).

Promoting that's great; promoting it by telling other people to do it
for you and not brooking objections is less so.

> Since the Debian project (luckily) rejects non-free works from its main
> archive, a DEBian CONFerence (isn't that the meaning of DebConf?) seems
> to be the ideal event where to promote DFSG-compliance...

If demanding DFSG-free licenses for papers were a good thing, doing
it at debconf would be an ideal place. I don't think the latter's been
established; and given the organisers don't even fully understand what
good licenses are for recordings of the conference, claiming we already
have all the answers on what makes good licenses for conferences seems
unjustifiable.

> If a paper/presentation/handout is interesting enough (I hope every
> author thinks his/her is, otherwise he/she would not give a talk at
> DebConf!), someone could modify it (in order to update it, improve it,
> translate it into another spoken language, ...) and reuse it (to give a
> talk in another conference, or to build a useful HOWTO, or whatever...).
> This mechanism would enable further spreading of good documentation on
> the subjects we care of.

Sure -- and all those things are possible with certain classes of
non-DFSG-free licenses too.

You might as well have said "If a paper is interesting enough, someone
might want to include it in Debian" -- in which case I'd have to demur;
I don't think my debbugs paper should be included in Debian, because
as interesting as it is, it's stuck in a particular time, that, four
months after the fact, is already obsolete. As far a

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
> >  said: 
> > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
> > > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper this
> > > year.
> > I was not aware  that you were soliciting opinions. If you
> >  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my opinion
> >  after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you think my
> >  rectitude was implicit approval.
> I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].
> I was willing to get in touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince
> you to relicense the paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found
> the time to do so...

Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any actual
reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you actually seem
to be itching to do that warrants a different license to the one I used.

> > Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
> >  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much of
> >  hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion. 
> It's my opinion, as well.

And I guess it's not surprising that that means the resultant "persuasion"
has to be little more than insults.

> That is exactly what I meant when I talked about acting "consistently
> with our philosophy" in my reply[2] to Andreas Schuldei (earlier in this
> thread).

Personally, my philosophy is that as many people as possible should
be encouraged to contribute to software, and free licensing (and thus
the DFSG) is an important factor in that. Another important factor is
treating contributors with courtesy and respect -- which at least means
not calling them hypocrites, and at best means trusting them to make
their own decisions on licensing.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

I think the best reason to ask or require contributors to licenses
their papers in a DFSG form is so that Debian can distribute the
papers as part of Debian.  

Thomas


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Closing bugs bevore the upload is available

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> > > AFAIK apt-listbugs only displays open bugs, if the bug is closed
> > > then it won't get displayed.
> > 
> > It will be displayed even when it's closed.  It does have some
> > heuristics to avoid showing irrelevant bugs.
> > 
> >  
> > > Ideally apt-listbugs needs to be updated to support the new
> > > versioning system in the BTS.
> > 
> > Taru; we've discussed face-to-face about handling the new BTS
> > versioning features last month[1]; how about implementing it?
> 
> Just be aware that it might show irrelevent results, cf. bug #334884.

Instead of specifying 'version=dist=unstable', specifying the 
exact version number seems to work, doesn't it?


As for apt-listbugs, apt-listbugs will know which version is going 
to be installed, and can check the metadata (summary file) directly, 
checking the Fixed-In tag to see if it's relevant or not.


regards,
junichi


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: New version of kernel-package to create image packages using debconf

[Junichi Uekawa]

Hi,

> I'm totally for a -dbg kernel package with an unstripped kernel for
> OProfile, as I use it quite frequently.
> 
> I wanted to use OProfile and get kernel stacks on Ubuntu Breezy, so
> ended up recompiling the standard kernel for vmlinux.  To be useful I
> needed to turn on DEBUG_INFO and DEBUG_FRAME_POINTERS, and this gave me
> a 25M vmlinux.  I'd expect DEBUG_INFO could be always on as the symbols
> would be stripped for the production kernel, but I don't think "normal"
> kernels should have frame pointers.

For DEBUG_FRAME_POINTERS, I think this is a limitation of oprofile that 
could eventually be worked around. It should technically be possible to 
obtain backtraces without frame pointers.

It would be really nice to have the production kernel debuggable,
without too much drawback. It really helps with system profiling.



regards,
junichi
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED],netfort.gr.jp}   Debian Project


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:36:36 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 05:28:04PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 22:30:52 -0600 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:46:24 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> >  said:
>> > > I don't believe I've seen anyone debate my use of the (aiui)
>> > > non-DFSG-free CC ShareAlike/Attrib clause on my debbugs paper
>> > > this year.
>> > I was not aware that you were soliciting opinions. If you
>> >  are, I find it deplorable. I saw no benefit in sharing my
>> >  opinion after the fact, but am perfectly willing to do so if you
>> >  think my rectitude was implicit approval.
>> I did it, last july on debian-legal[1].  I was willing to get in
>> touch with you (=Anthony) and try to convince you to relicense the
>> paper in a DFSG-free manner, but haven't yet found the time to do
>> so...

> Implicit in both your responses is that neither of you have any
> actual reason to do so, other than ideology -- there's nothing you
> actually seem to be itching to do that warrants a different license
> to the one I used.

Err, selecting free software has mostly also been a matter of
 belief  that freedom of information and software is a worthwhile
 goal, and that  the synergy and explosion of stabding on shoulders of
 giants phenomena is worthwhile, and the returns of such a increase in
 cooperation are real -- and to be striven for.

I personally have only exploited but a fraction of the free
  software that is out there, but still believe that  I, and others
  benerift, even if I personally have not been an instrument in all
  such cases.

I am sorry to see you dismiss this as mere ideology; and I am
 sorry that your imagination has not seen what I see.

>> > Any advocacy of the DFSG by an organization that happily
>> >  accepts non-free licenses when it is convenient, smacks so much
>> >  of hypocrisy to be unpersuasive. But that is just my opinion.
>> It's my opinion, as well.

> And I guess it's not surprising that that means the resultant
> "persuasion" has to be little more than insults.


Pot. Kettle. insults. ideology.

I do stand behind my words; here are, chastizing the GFDL for
 not being free, standing on the verge of the rowing GNU
 documentation out of Debian, and yet, we blithely, though the
 instrumentation of an annual Debian Developer conference, accept any
 non-free license there is, as long as it makes "our" conference a
 success.

I leave it to the readers to determine if this is, or is not,
 hypocrisy . 

manoj

-- 
My BIOLOGICAL ALARM CLOCK just went off ... It has noiseless DOZE
FUNCTION and full kitchen!!
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:28:41 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 07:26:55PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > Scripsit Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> > The conferences I usually publish at always demand an all-out
>> > copyright _transfer_. However, in practice they will usually
>> > accept a non-exclusive license to print and distribute unmodified
>> > copies.  I think it would be sad if Debconf required more than
>> > that.
>> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
>> distributable.

> Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> stuff from the free stuff.

I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
 mark the distinction. I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
 this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
 that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no
 difference. 

If the perception is indeed that Debian distributes non-free
 software (and the distinction that this is  not part of Debian really
 is silly), then I do think we need to move the non-free archive off
 Debian.org machines.

If distributring non-free software  is not only deemed
 acceptable, but doing so by debian seen as routine,  then we are
 losing the vision of the SC (in my opinion). Either we change the
 social contract, or it is time to clearly mark non-free software as
 such by moving it off our machines.

> I'm not sure anyone thinks we couldn't /function/ without non-free,
> but a majority of us decided it would be /better/ to keep it.

I was one of that majority. I have changed my mind. I think it
 is far easier now than it was a few years ago to host  any non-free
 packages anyone is interested in. Hell, I'll even volunteer to help
 run such a machine if it means that the non-free software moves off
 debian.org machines.

I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
 label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
 previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
 is coming to the time where the question should again be open for
 discussion. 

manoj
-- 
Where the system is concerned, you're not allowed to ask "Why?".
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:13:51 +1000, Anthony Towns  
said: 

> On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

> But instead, what I'm led to wonder is if this is really standing up
> for our beliefs and fighting the good fight, or actually just trying
> to avoid those issues. Because insisting non-free stuff not appear
> at debconf seems like trying to avoid acknowledging its existence in
> the same manner as "sweeping stuff under the carpet", rather than
> having the non-free stuff appear and trying to convince possibly
> disagreeable folks that the DFSG's terms really are worth following
> no matter what your goals.

This is a conference for Debian development. By definition,
 Debian is 100%free. Am I mistaken in assuming that people
 contributing to Debian are already familiar with the social contract,
 and have decided to conform to it? (If now, why try to help Debian,
 which, as a project, has ratified the SC, and thus the DFSG == free
 ideal). 


Is there a need for us to invite software bits that are not
 free? Would we not be better off espousing the cause of freedom of
 software, even though doing so means I can't include all kinds of
 nifty stuff like cedega to run Quicken in Etch, or non-free papers in
 a conference of Debian developers?

> The world at large has lots of non-free licenses for content -- if
> we wanted to run away from that fact and avoid it, wouldn't we
> create a little enclave of our own with guards at the gate telling
> everyone who doesn't meet our standards to go back home, in the same
> way debconf is?

Are you now advocating we throw open contribution to Debian to
 all kinds of licenses for software content, and not run away from the
 non-free software by refusing to do so?

> (Hrm, I'm actually not sure why I chose the CC license now; I
> thought I remembered the dc5 CFP said papers had to be GPLed or
> CCed, and that tweaking all the mindless DFSG bigots by licensing my
> paper in a way that's adequately free, yet not DFSG-free would be
> fun. But the dc5 CC stuff was actually just for the recordings,
> afaics, so maybe that wasn't it, or maybe I was just confused. Oh
> well)

Hmm. While making tweaking other peoples nose as a criteria
 selecting a license for content I have created seems bizarre and
 juvenile to me, but you are not me, and it is your prerogative.


> My blog's aggregated on planet.debian.org; these lists posts (that
> aren't explicitly licensed at all, let alone DFSG-freely) are
> archived on lists.debian.org, and bug related conversations (which
> likewise are generally only implicitly licensed) are archived on
> bugs.debian.org.

Hmm. Blogs and mail, where the content is percieved to be the
 opinion of the author, and notratified by the project, seems
 definitely different from invited talks and papers, with the
 invitation coming from Debian developers, for a conference related to
 Debian development, and where the Debian project defrays the cost of
 the presenters -- a hole new ball game, no?

> Of these, debconf probably is the one that makes least use of the
> "imprimatur of the Debian project", being hosted at debconf.org.

I see. The project using funds to defray expenses of people
 who attend the conference counts for nothing, eh? You see nothing
 wrong in the Debian project paying for  a paper with a non-free
 content? So we would be paying for non-free software (which
 represents a presentation)?


Somehow, I kinda find that ... unusual, to say the least.

> In the same way that non-free, which is distributed by DEbian, can

I am glad you brought that up. I think the world has changed
 since we last looked at that issue, and perhjaps 2006 is a  good year
 to re-examine that via a fresh GR?

> be construed as the product of the Debian project or in any way part
> of Debian, then we're constrained to have non-free be free?

Actually, if it is considered a part of Debian by a
 significant number of observers, we are failing to clearly mark
 content as non-free, and should take steps so as to not dilute our
 message of the importance of freedom of software.

> That's a deeply erroneous argument, both at a factual level, and as
> advocacy.

I beg to differ.

> It's far more effective to advocate for something by demonstrating
> you're not prejudiced against the alternatives, and simply in favour
> of the best thing winning, and that you, personally, think the best
> thing is free software. You not only get your point across, but you
> also get to establish that you're not in denial about the strengths
> of your opposition and that your judgement and arguments can be
> listened to without having to filter out too much self-serving bias.

So, you are advocating shipping, say, EULA'd sotware in
 Debian, and letting the best software win, and the hell with the
 DFSG? Or, if not, why the difference in your stance?

>> If, of course, Debconf is a 

Re: Licenses for DebConf6

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 11:24:04PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> Several distros include non-free software, as long as it's
> >> distributable.
> > Debian's one of them -- we just clearly separate out the non-free
> > stuff from the free stuff.
> I am coming to the conclusion thst we do not clearly enough
>  mark the distinction. 

*shrug* The only lack of clarity comes when people indulge in sweeping
rhetoric claiming that everything Debian related is 100% free, which is
not true now and never has been.

>  I am changing my mind about the non-free GR --
>  this time, I would vote differently; since even you seem to imply
>  that Debian includes non-free software, or close enough as to make no
>  difference. 

No, I specifically cited the difference from some other distributions --
that we separate it out quite clearly.

Personally, the conclusion I'm coming to is that Debian's spent a little
too much time trying to have it both ways on issues like this, rather than
fighting for what we actually believe even when that doesn't fit into a
simple slogan.

> I am also now convinced I was mistaken in assuming that we
>  label non-free software "clearly". So, I, for one, am reexamining my
>  previous support for keeping non-free on Debian machines. Perhaps it
>  is coming to the time where the question should again be open for
>  discussion. 

Maybe we should just have it on a set date annually, no matter who won
last time.

Cheers,
aj



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature