Subject:
Re: LDP "non-free" documents
From:
Colin Watson ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 21:29:29 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310211551.GB31535@riva.ucam.org>
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 02:31:01PM -0500, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote:
> I am the current maintainer for the LDP Author Guide. I'm working on the
> section on licensing right now. It has been brought to my attention that
> the LDP documents have been divided into "free" and "non-free" packages. I
> would like to give our authors a succinct explanation on the distinction so
> that they may choose the best license for their document.
>
> I have read:
> http://packages.debian.org/unstable/doc/doc-linux-nonfree-html
> and see that:
> The documents in this package fail to meet the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines for various reasons. For the most part this is due to
> significant restrictions on modification or on commercial
> redistribution, neither of which can be allowed for packages in the
> main distribution. See /usr/share/doc/doc-linux-nonfree-html/copyright
> for full details.
>
> I have read:
> /usr/share/doc/doc-linux-nonfree-html/copyright
> and see that it explains why each document has been included in this
> package.
>
> Could you please tell me how you make the decision whether a document is
> considered "free" (I see how these specific documents are "non-free")? I
> am hoping that there is some kind of (published) checklist that I could
> point authors to. I have no problem with the distinction as some documents
> are clearly not modifiable and cannot be redistributed, but I would like
> to know by what criteria this distinction is made. The decision does not
> seem to be based on license alone as there are some GNU FDL documents in
> the "non-free" package, but not all GNU FDL documents are "non-free."
>
> I look forward to your response so that I may update the LDP Author Guide.
Shortish answer first.
The official word on a published checklist is simply:
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
In practice, this is informed by a great deal of context which we aren't
always very good at publishing to outsiders (largely because licensing
is so controversial even within Debian), and, as you note, there are
interesting issues surrounding the GNU FDL. The current distinction in
the Debian doc-linux packages is in fact well-defined, and documented in
the copyright file above as follows:
"Previous discussions on debian-legal have concluded that GNU FDL
Invariant Sections not related to copyright notices or licensing are
generally not to be permitted in main. If you disagree, please bring
the matter up on debian-legal and report the results of the
discussion."
So this decision is, in fact, made on licence alone, when you take into
consideration the fact that the licensing conditions of a work are often
the combination of a boilerplate licence such as the GNU FDL plus some
extra text: for example, 'the GNU Free Documentation License, with one
Invariant Section, namely "Sources of Information"'.
The following is a FAQ about our guidelines:
http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
Rick Moen will probably rightly point out that this is entirely
unofficial. However, in my four-year experience as a Debian developer
and my year-and-a-half experience on the Debian release team, I find it
(revision 1.84) a good and accurate summary of how things work for us.
While most of our documents only talk about "software", you can pretty
much assume from http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 and
http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 (the combined outcomes of which
are binding on Debian) that reading "documentation" instead of
"software" will be a good idea. (I'd rather not get into a discussion
about this point, or have comments aimed at me about it; I was on the
losing side of that debate.)
I think you can safely use the above references to craft advice for
authors, for the meantime.
In addition, speaking only for myself, I think it would be a good idea
to suggest to authors that they prefer shorter licences when they can.
This has two advantages: the author can understand the licence
conveniently, and readers can understand the licence conveniently! I
don't think anyone should ever be using a licence that they don't
understand themselves. Furthermore, any debates about the licence won't
be tedious ten-page dissertations on a mind-numbing work of legal
i-dotting and t-crossing; they'll be short and to the point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long answer second, about how Debian's licensing decisions happen. If
you're prone to narcolepsy, look away now.
It looks like there's been a certain amount of talk about this on
discuss@; I'm afraid I haven't been subscribed there for a while now,
since having run out of time I no longer maintain Debian's doc-linux
packages. Frank Lichtenheld does most of the work there, with help from
Doug Jensen. I did have a quick browse through the archives, though.
One post that caught my eye was this one, quoting a comment from Rick
Moen which I'm afraid I haven't quite dug up in the archives directly,
so I don't know if it's already seen other replies; but it seems a
fairly good place to start:
http://lists.tldp.org/index.cgi?1:mss:8949:200503:gbfmkebgkdbplokcigik
1. Although that page and the linked "License Information" page are
maintained by an (unidentified) Debian webmaster, he does not speak
for the Debian Project, because he cannot. I have in previous
discussions on this matter gone through a long analysis of who speaks
for Debian and in what circumstances: Can unearth that if you need
it, but (from memory) it's the Debian Project Leader, his Deputies for
various specialised purposes, various General Resolutions that are
proposed and passed, actions of the Technical Committee, and decisions
of individual Debian package maintainers. (In matters of licensing,
decisions always devolve to the level of individual package
maintainers.)
While most of this is correct, the parenthesised sentence at the end is
at best highly misleading, and explaining how will probably clarify
matters. Packagers do make initial decisions themselves while creating
packages, but they can be overridden before they even become the package
maintainer (i.e. before their package enters the archive), and in
addition they can be overridden at a later date.
The Debian archive administrators, as delegates of the Debian Project
Leader, are responsible for ensuring that material published in the
Debian archive meets with legal requirements and (to at least some
degree) with Debian policy. One of the matters that they are charged
with enforcing is that the licence of all packages in the main
distribution must comply with the DFSG. Their judgement on this
supersedes that of individual package maintainers; technically there are
appeal mechanisms, but I've never heard of them being invoked for this
purpose.
The archive maintainers (commonly "ftpmasters") generally take into
account discussions on the debian-legal mailing list while making these
determinations. Thus, while it's true that any given discussion on
debian-legal is just that of a random collection of people, conclusions
reached by wide consensus on debian-legal (as opposed to merely
consensus of the loud) have considerable force in practice.
In addition, the release managers (of which I'm currently one), as
delegates of the Debian Project Leader, have authority to decide what
should or shouldn't go into a release. This rarely involves making
licensing decisions over and above what the ftpmasters say, but it has
been known to happen.
Now, there are a number of problems that arise from this setup. The main
one is communication. The ftpmasters are probably the most frequently
and extensively flamed group in Debian. They do a lot of largely
thankless work behind the scenes, but by nature their job involves
saying "no", and over time they've come to avoid saying anything much
unless they have to. (This is, of course, a vicious circle to some
extent ...) Thus, having them publish a list of acceptable and/or
unacceptable licences has unfortunately never actually happened; not to
mention that such a list would never be complete because people have an
incredible fondness for making up their own licences, both free and
non-free of all shapes and sizes. Plus, very few people actually enjoy
doing this stuff.
When new packages are uploaded to the archive, the ftpmasters are
responsible for vetting it before it's included. This is the point when
direct communication generally happens: if the licence is unacceptable,
the package is rejected with a note about why.
Beyond that, well, if something is in the main distribution that
shouldn't be there, then we regard that as a release-critical bug. Such
bugs can be filed by anybody; however, they receive a lot of scrutiny,
particularly by the release team, and it generally becomes clear very
quickly whether they make sense or not. "Release-critical" is defined by
the release team, and if need be the release team can remove a package
from the release or the ftpmasters can remove a package from the archive
over and above the wishes of the package maintainer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this clarifies matters. I somehow doubt it will, because it's far
too long for that, but I hope it does nevertheless. :-) On matters of
release policy, I (together with Steve Langasek) can speak for the
Debian Project; on everything else, you'll probably just have to take my
word for it.
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson ####@####.####
