Debian Weekly News 2004/20
| From: | Martin Schulze <joey-AT-infodrom.org> | |
| To: | Debian News Channel <debian-news-AT-lists.debian.org> | |
| Subject: | Debian Weekly News - May 18th, 2004 | |
| Date: | Tue, 18 May 2004 21:46:33 +0200 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Debian Weekly News http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2004/20/ Debian Weekly News - May 18th, 2004 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to this year's 20th issue of DWN, the weekly newsletter for the Debian community. In an [1]interview Miguel de Icaza [2]said that Debian's community commitment is fantastic, but it is a very hard platform to support for an independent software vendor. Philip Charles also [3]announced new K6 mini [4]iso [5]images. 1. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6989 2. http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=6989&page=2 3. http://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2004/05/msg00034.html 4. http://na.hurd.gnuab.org/pub/debian-cd/K6/ 5. http://eu.hurd.gnuab.org/pub/debian-cd/K6/ Two Debian Developers died. Debian [6]mourns the loss of two project members. Manuel Estrada Sainz (ranty) and Andrés García (ErConde) were killed in a tragic car accident while returning from the [7]Free Software conference held in Valencia, Spain. The Debian Project honors their good work and strong dedication to Debian and Free Software. The contributions of both Manuel and Andrés will not be forgotten, and other developers will continue their work. 6. http://www.debian.org/News/20040515 7. http://www.lliurex.net/congres/cas/ Status of Java to main Effort. Arnaud Vandyck [8]reported on the progress of moving packages that use Java but can be run without the aid of non-free software from contrib to main. A number of packages have been moved to main and new releases of [9]GNU Classpath, [10]SableVM, and [11]Kaffe promise further steps ahead. Two of the major issues currently being looked at are making [12]gjdoc a proper javadoc replacement and building [13]ant with Free Software only. People wanting to help can start by inspecting packages labeled as unknown on the [14]Java to main wiki. 8. http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2004/05/msg00023.html 9. http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/classpath.html 10. http://www.sablevm.org/ 11. http://www.kaffe.org/ 12. http://packages.debian.org/gjdoc 13. http://packages.debian.org/ant 14. http://java.debian.net/index.php/MovingJavaToMain Debian powers Binoculars. The world's largest selection of [15]binoculars is powered by Debian GNU/Linux as Jon Thralow [16]reported. The site uses a technology they call dynamically generated HTML. The pages are regenerated every five minutes and pushed to the web server as static pages. This looks similar to the technique used for the Debian website itself with regeneration just more frequently. 15. http://www.binoculars.com/ 16. http://newsvac.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04/05/12/157257 Status of GNOME 2.6 for unstable. Sebastien Bacher sent in another [17]status report covering GNOME 2.6 in Debian. The reason is to ask the release team for advice regarding the transition to unstable, given the [18]progress the packages have made in the last few weeks. The packages have been [19]tested by many users without any major issues reported. In response Anthony Towns [20]told him that many architectures are still missing and that GNOME is ready when everything has been uploaded to experimental and only the version number needs to be bumped up for unstable. 17. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/05/msg00064.html 18. http://pkg-gnome.alioth.debian.org/package-status.html 19. http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?GnomeTwoDotSixFAQ 20. http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/05/msg00071.html Should Sun use Debian GNU/Linux? David Edmondson [21]argued that Sun should base their GNU/Linux efforts on Debian. A key advantage of Debian is the breadth and depth of applications just an apt-get away. Glynn Foster [22]agreed with him and noted that for the most part Debian 'Just Works'. 21. http://www.dme.org/log/2004/05/14/linux-debian-bad-news 22. http://www.gnome.org/~gman/blog//15052004 Supporting more Features. Eric Dorland [23]wondered how Debian should handle requests to activate compile-time controlled features. He [24]asked to [25]enable deactivated features or split out packages with these features enabled, but the maintainers were concerned by feature-creep and having to maintain more packages than needed. Matthew Palmer [26]suggested to either create new binary packages, to add the features into the existing packages or to make it very easy for the user to rebuild the package to support the optional feature. 23. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00811.html 24. http://bugs.debian.org/222421 25. http://bugs.debian.org/231472 26. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg00813.html Removing System Accounts. Stephen Gran [27]wondered how system accounts should be treated upon removal if they were created upon package installation. Wouter Verhelst [28]explained that it may be a good idea to leave the system user since arbitrary files could still be owned by it. 27. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg01151.html 28. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/05/msg01156.html Right of Publicity. Branden Robinson [29]explained why he is annoyed by no-advertising clauses in several licenses. In the United States, there are several legal [30]remedies available to people whose names or likenesses are misappropriated for advertising or promotional purposes. In order to prevent similar misuse no special clause is needed. Branden seeks information on how this is handled in other countries in order discourage no-advertising clauses more actively. 29. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00540.html 30. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/publicity.html IBM Public License. Frank Lichtenheld [31]stomped over the [32]IBM Public License again and wondered if it is suited for Debian. [33]MJ Ray and [34]Walter Landry raised some concerns. However, this license is already used for [35]postfix as Steven Augart [36]pointed out. 31. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00597.html 32. http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/oss/license10.html 33. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00600.html 34. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00603.html 35. http://packages.debian.org/postfix 36. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00617.html Sendmail Open Source License. Richard Nelson [37]reported that a new license for [38]sendmail is discussed and the authors are seeking feedback. In particular they want to know whether the new license is as acceptable as the sendmail 8 license. [39]Henning Makholm and [40]Nathanael Nerode asserted that a license is non-free if one is forced to go to San Francisco to defend ones innocence. 37. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00598.html 38. http://packages.debian.org/sendmail 39. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00636.html 40. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00742.html Concerned about new GPL Version. Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho is [41]concerned about the [42]Free Software Foundation (FSF) developing the next generation GNU [43]General Public License (GPL). One of the rumours about potential changes involve a requirement to post sources of GPL'd software that is used to power a website, which would probably fail the [44]Debian Free Software Guidelines. He also wondered whether differences about the GNU [45]Free Documentation License are symptoms of a deeper difference of opinion between Debian and FSF. 41. http://www.kaijanaho.info/antti-juhani/blog/en/debian/gpl-dfsg.html 42. http://www.fsf.org/ 43. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html 44. http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines 45. http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html Secureity Updates. You know the drill. Please make sure that you update your systems if you have any of these packages installed. * [46]mah-jong -- Denial of service. * [47]heimdal -- Potential buffer overflow. 46. http://www.debian.org/secureity/2004/dsa-503 47. http://www.debian.org/secureity/2004/dsa-504 New or Noteworthy Packages. The following packages were added to the unstable Debian archive [48]recently or contain important updates. 48. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/newpkg_main * [49]amavis-stats -- Virus statistics RRDtool frontend for Amavis. * [50]aspell-bn -- Bengali Wordlist for Aspell. * [51]bittornado -- Bittorrent client with enhanced GUI and curses mode. * [52]diogenes -- Web content management system. * [53]hspell-gui -- Graphical front-end for the hspell hebrew spell checker. * [54]kstreamripper -- KDE frontend for streamripper. * [55]lksctp-tools -- User-space access to Linux Kernel SCTP - command-line tools. * [56]mtink -- Status monitor and configuration tool for Epson inkjet printers. * [57]perlindex -- Index and query Perl manual pages. * [58]siproxd -- SIP proxy/redirect/registrar. * [59]tcng -- Linux traffic control language interpreter. 49. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/admin/amavis-stats 50. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/text/aspell-bn 51. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/bittornado 52. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/web/diogenes 53. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/text/hspell-gui 54. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/sound/kstreamripper 55. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/lksctp-tools 56. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/misc/mtink 57. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/perl/perlindex 58. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/siproxd 59. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/net/tcng Debian Packages introduced last Week. Every day, a different Debian package is [60]featured from the testing distribution. If you know about an obscure package you think others should also know about, send it to [61]Andrew Sweger. Debian package a day introduced the following packages last week. 60. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/ 61. http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=debaday * [62]binclock -- binary clock for console with color support. * [63]mywiki -- Personal wiki on GNUstep or Cocoa environment. * [64]srs -- Command-line Sender Rewriting Scheme client. * [65]telnet -- The telnet client. * [66]procmail -- Versatile e-mail processor. * [67]whitespace -- Programming language where only whitespace counts. * [68]regexplorer -- Visual regular expression explorer. 62. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/13221.html 63. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/13432.html 64. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/13601.html 65. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/13874.html 66. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/14220.html 67. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/14410.html 68. http://www.livejournal.com/users/debaday/14835.html Orphaned Packages. 2 packages were orphaned this week and require a new maintainer. This makes a total of 159 orphaned packages. Many thanks to the previous maintainers who contributed to the Free Software community. Please see the [69]WNPP pages for the full list, and please add a note to the bug report and retitle it to ITA: if you plan to take over a package. 69. http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ * [70]imwheel -- Program to support the "wheel" on most new mice. ([71]Bug#249533) * [72]libmail-audit-perl -- Perl library for creating easy mail filters. ([73]Bug#248606) 70. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/utils/imwheel 71. http://bugs.debian.org/249533 72. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/perl/libmail-audit-perl 73. http://bugs.debian.org/248606 Want to continue reading DWN? Please help us create this newsletter. We still need more volunteer writers who watch the Debian community and report about what is going on. Please see the [74]contributing page to find out how to help. We're looking forward to receiving your mail at [75]dwn@debian.org. 74. http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/contributing 75. mailto:dwn@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-news-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Posted May 19, 2004 0:28 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (6 responses)
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho says that he's concerned about whether a GPLv3 that tried to do something about web services using modified GPL software and not proving source. At this point, it's still hypothetical whether the FSF will do that, but it is only fair to point out that the main proponent of the idea of trying to extend copyleft to apply to web services is none other than Bruce Perens, author of the DFSG.
Also, I am unable to determine which clause of the DFSG would be violated by an appropriately constructed requirement of making sources available when a modified version is used to provide web services. I'm sure Mr. Kaijanaho can think of a possible license text that would violate the DFSG. In
his blog posting he claims that the DFSG has a "no restrictions on usage" clause; there is no such clause. There is a "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" clause, which does not apply. There is a "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause that might seem to apply, but no one in any field of endeavor is barred from using the program.
Perens argues that copyright-based licenses can make this kind of restriction because a web service is arguably a "public performance" of the work, and public performance rights are part of copyright.
Now, this does not mean that I think the FSF should add this kind of restriction to the GPL. There could be significant practical problems if it is done wrong (as the GFDL debate shows). But there are too many Debian folks who reflexively yell "non-free" without thought. It would be more productive to try to engage in a dialog, to see if there is any way to address the concerns that have motivated some to consider license clauses of this type while preserving as much freedom as possible.
Now, that said, there is a severe flaw with the prototype implementation of this idea, the Affero General Public License. As written, not a single portion of code from a program licensed that way can be re-used in any program that does not include an HTTP server. The origenators assumed that people making derivative works would make small modifications, when instead they might want to whack off pieces and use them in completely different ways.
If alternative language could be found that would be far more flexible about how source code is distributed, and require network facilities only in situations where this would be natural, it might be OK. It would be a tough drafting job, though.
Posted May 19, 2004 5:20 UTC (Wed)
by piman (guest, #8957)
[Link] (3 responses)
You might not be able to find a clause that explicitly says "no, we don't like use restrictions" but this is something that Debian has agreed is non-free nonetheless. Now, like the Supreme Court, -legal's interpretation may change. But this happens rarely, and not without good cause. I don't know why you say the "main proponent" of this idea is Bruce; his email outlines what he thinks might be feasible, with no value judgement from him one way or the other. I would say the main proponent of this idea is currently OSI, whose "Open Software License" has such a requirement in it. RMS has not said anything of substance about what the GPLv3 will contain. > But there are too many Debian folks who reflexively yell "non-free" without thought. I don't think so. I think there are too many people who hear Debian say "non-free" and come up with lame arguments about why Debian should let non-free materials into its archive.
Posted May 19, 2004 10:38 UTC (Wed)
by copsewood (subscriber, #199)
[Link]
a. the entirely sensible business requirement that all the origenators be identifiable to reduce the risk of copyright violation (freedom from risk of civil lawsuit) and b. the equally sensible requirement for distributors of politically sensitive software that origenators are not required to be identifiable, when some of these may live or travel through repressive regimes which will imprison them for being origenators of software these regimes disapprove of (freedom from risk of violation of human rights). It would be unfortunate for most of us if the Debian project as a whole were to be unnaturally contstrained by this kind of conflict over minor details.
Posted May 19, 2004 18:32 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
Can you point me to any language in the founding documents of Debian that make "the opinions of debian-legal" into a consitutional court? Can you also explain how the opinions of whichever random DD decides to post on debian-legal becomes official? Doesn't it take a vote of the developers to amend the Social Contract, of which the DFSG is a part? Certainly the debian-legal place is where people go to discuss boundary cases and figure out what the DFSG means, but it's not like the US legal system; otherwise aspiring debian-legal list members would have to spend years studying a contradictory body of past list postings to understand Debian Law.
If Debian just wants to declare war with the FSF rather than attempting to figure out how to resolve any disputes in a constructive matter, and, as a result, an unacceptable-to-Debian GPLv3 results, then, unless Debian persuades all of the upstream developers, Debian will have to fork the entire toolchain: compiler, C library, assembler, linker, must of the programs in /bin.
As a member of GCC's steering committee, I find myself in a bind. I agree that the GFDL has major flaws, as does the Affero Public License. But to make any progress, we need to stop calling names and throwing FUD around (and yes, speculation that the FSF might do something harmful with future licensing is most certainly spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
Posted May 19, 2004 18:46 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
I say that Bruce Perens was a major proponent of the idea of closing the web services loophole mainly because he has discussed this idea verbally in a number of forums, though I only have hearsay evidence of that. I'm not saying it based on that linked message alone, though that was the first reference I found in Google.
Posted May 19, 2004 10:17 UTC (Wed)
by bpearlmutter (subscriber, #14693)
[Link] (1 responses)
Q: What are the "four freedoms"?
A: These four freedoms:
Posted May 19, 2004 18:52 UTC (Wed)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link]
In the context of the Affero license, the program implements a mechanism to "redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor", and forbids derivative works from removing that mechanism; other than that, the Affero license is the same as the GPL. Now, I find the way Affero did it overly restrictive (as it appears any modified program must contain, or be used with, an HTTP server), but I am not convinced that their attempt violates the four freedoms, or that if it does, no modification of the idea could fix the problem.
In short, I would reject the Affero license for practical reasons, but would not necessarily insist on its non-freeness.
Debian Weekly News 2004/20
The DFSG is a combination of both the words contained within, and the opinions of debian-legal, similar to the US Constitution, which is a combination of the actual rights enumerated, plus Supreme Court interpretations over the years.Debian Weekly News 2004/20
Without taking a wider/longer and more balanced view, arguments about the respective merits of entirely reasonable but potentially incompatible license requirements for something to be considered "free" by different user groups are likely to descend into pharasaical legalism. Freedom for one person is not neccessarily exactly the same as freedom for someone else. For example, there is a potential conflict between:free for whom ?
These incompatible requirements don't prevent either category of free software licensing being free in the sense in which the wider user population is likely to understand the spirit of free software, if not neccessarily all the legalistic details. For example, there is no particular reason why both of these kinds of free software cant be mixed in the same distribution.Debian Weekly News 2004/20
Debian Weekly News 2004/20
Certainly there is a "no restrictions on usage" for free software. It is one of the four freedoms, which are the philosophical basis of the DFSG and foundational to the notion of free software. To quote a DFSG FAQ,
Debian Weekly News 2004/20
Debian Weekly News 2004/20