Re: open source or free software?
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:05:55PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > There has been some chat on my recent blog post[1] and #debian-devel about > whether the terms "open source" or "free software" provide more correct or > useful terminology. It'd probably be easiest to assert zealous FSF support and link to their page that specifies what language we are not free to use: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html ...wherein we can no longer say "vendor" or "cloud", and are exhorted to believe six impossible things before breakfast. (Alright, they don't implicitly state that last bit.) A more valuable use of time might be discussing the merits of supporting a ZFS root in Debian. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org Ewige Blumenkraft! awake ? sleep : random() & 2 ? dream : sleep; -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140828143115.gi3...@blisses.org
Re: open source or free software?
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:28:51AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > This is an absurd misrepresentation. No-one is threatening to prevent you > using the words the FSF disapprove of. And yet, an argument about the merits of saying "free software" versus saying "open source" is nothing more than an attempt to push a particular political stance. It's a waste of time and divisive all at once, when there are more important things to talk about. > And the rest of your mail is insulting. Hardly. A Lewis Carroll quote to illustrate my feelings about this form of zealotry and the a mention of one of the most grievous shortcomings of the GNU/Linux-based world today hardly qualify as insult. The notion that a portion of the community doesn't know what they're saying when they use choose to use certain language *is* insulting, however. This particular discussion doesn't a have anything important at the end, like the recent systemd ruction. It's conflict for its own sake, and I'd prefer that it be kept where it was. I can think of no reason why it has to move to debian-project from IRC beyond a hope that the argument can be won by pressing down from above, as it were. -- Mason Loring Bliss (( If I have not seen as far as others, it is because ma...@blisses.org )) giants were standing on my shoulders. - Hal Abelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140831033236.gc3...@blisses.org
Re: open source or free software?
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 08:40:16AM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote: > What I'm really getting at is how do we explain it concisely to new people > and boost recognition of genuine free software. I didn't say "ban this or > ban that", I was just pointing out that many people are using their own > definition of open source. So, to that end, are there any examples of folks calling something "open source" and that thing using something other than an OSI-approved license? I think anyone who's aware of the concept tends to use the right term, at least as far as I can remember. People are either completely unaware of the concept and use "free" as a grab-bag for "freeware" (meaning closed-source or proprietary software that's gratis) as well as free sofware in the sense free software/open source advocates have in mind, or they're clued in enough to mean (and understand) what they say when they say "open source". In particular, "open source" is an easier terminology to use with folks who are new to the concept, as it avoids the whole "gratis versus libre" explication, which despite the best of intentions can come across as being somewhat pompous, or at least tediously hairsplitting, whereas "open source" is pretty unambiguous. Stallman says in http://tinyurl.com/3kqjz2r: However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” I haven't ever encountered this interpretation. It sounds more like RMS is describing a "source license" here. Maybe there are people who confuse the two, but I have not noted them. I personally prefer the term "free software" and I'm happy to explain it to people, not least because I don't fear being seen as a relentless pedant. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 09:11:02PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > If you want to avoid politics entirely, good luck finding a small cabin in > the woods where you can withdraw from all other humans. Which, I should > note, is also a political act. The only nit I'd pick with you is that my political statement was overtly political, versus something that suggests that it's simply trying to find clarity of communication but that's suspiciously like a talking point on the FSF document I linked in my first volley^H^H^H^H^H^Hreply. -- Mason Loring Bliss (( "In the drowsy dark cave of the mind dreams ma...@blisses.org )) build their nest with fragments dropped http://blisses.org/ (( from day's caravan." - Rabindranath Tagore -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140831073545.gd3...@blisses.org
Re: Code of Conduct violations handling process
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 06:31:59PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Neil Gaiman writes: > > I was reading a book (about interjections, oddly enough) yesterday > which included the phrase `In these days of political correctness...' > talking about no longer making jokes that denigrated people for their > culture or for the colour of their skin. And I thought, `That's not > actually anything to do with `political correctness'. That's just > treating other people with respect.' This a fairly useful view of political correctness, and I approve of it generally while also firmly believing that not all opinions are worthy of respect. Elsewhere in the thread it was mentioned that organizations like the KKK rant about political correctness to shield and justify their own prejudices and hate speech - in the strictest sense, Gaiman's adopted view of political correctness would also require treating members of the KKK with respect, as the view as presented seems to be a fairly open-minded stance. Perhaps I'm a hopeless primitive, but I don't see value in tolerating intolerable things. While the KKK makes an extreme example, everything exists on a continuum, and there will be things I don't wish to tolerate or support - and I recognize in advance that other folks will disagree with my criteria. A relevant and pragmatic approach comes from a recent talk given by Linus Torvalds at DebConf 2014[1] wherein he said, "People are different, and some people take offense, and some people give offense, and we all have to live together. But, the living together is not by finding some lowest common demoninator." In general I support the notion of a code of conduct. I've personally witnessed the desperate need for a Code of Conduct in the various IRC support channels that service Debian users, wherein I've witnessed users being abused by those in power, and noted a closed-door policy regarding the discussion of operator actions with no recourse to a uniform code of conduct. I simply wish to suggest that we come at it from as unbiased a position as possible - don't start off by seeking to be offended, and be quick to reset to a neutral stance as often as possible, rather than driving up the level of tension and riding it from crest to crest. I don't execute this plan perfectly myself, but it's the goal. It's summed up well in the Robustness Principle[2]: "Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept." [1]: http://t.co/jUSBbSAsrN [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgEwige Blumenkraft! (if awake 'sleep (aref #(sleep dream) (random 2))) -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140904152050.gu3...@blisses.org
CoC / procedural abuse
I received a rather dismayed email from Zenaan Harkness last night, saying that he's been blocked from posting to any Debian mailing lists as a result of his emails to debian-project regarding the recent CoC discussion. While I thought his points were entirely valid - the actual "offense" noted was never brought up, and frankly, the context here was important to understanding the nature and the character of the complaint - the larger point is that evidently there is quiet censorship of dissenting opinion, and presumably this censorship was itself skirting the bounds of the CoC. The relevant section, in its entirety: 6. In case of problems While this code of conduct should be adhered to by participants, we recognize that sometimes people may have a bad day, or be unaware of some of the guidelines in this code of conduct. When that happens, you may reply to them and point out this code of conduct. Such messages may be in public or in private, whatever is most appropriate. However, regardless of whether the message is public or not, it should still adhere to the relevant parts of this code of conduct; in particular, it should not be abusive or disrespectful. Assume good faith; it is more likely that participants are unaware of their bad behaviour than that they intentionally try to degrade the quality of the discussion. Serious or persistent offenders will be temporarily or permanently banned from communicating through Debian's systems. Complaints should be made (in private) to the administrators of the Debian communication forum in question. To find contact information for these administrators, please see the page on Debian's organizational structure. It's difficult to think that Zenaan hasn't been a net positive in the discussion. Looking through the list in my mail folder, including the email that's been expunged from the list archives, there is only one email that includes things that could be considered particularly poor form in public, of eight posts in the thread. Was there process involved with his expulsion, or did the person who told him he had been blocked acting alone? Is there record of this action? Debian solicits donations and on its face tries to be a public organization - it exists to promote social good and to enhance the direct experience of freedom for computer users - and it's extremely difficult for me to understand how what's happened is even vaguely appropriate. Frankly, I think that unless there is documented process followed and a record of the administrative action - if this was a person in power acting alone - the person who banned him should be removed from any position of administrative power. There is ample room for technical contribution to Debian without this sort of despotism. I'll note that one of the things that dismayed Zenaan the most was that this action was taken in private, which is wholly at odds with what Debian is about. Having contributed a not-trivial amount of money to SPI, earmarked for Debian, I might have an unreasonable expectation regarding its transparent operation, but I have this expectation nonetheless, and I want all of us to know what has happened here. I do *not* want a private response - that would also be inappropriate. The people who need a response are the ones who have contributed to the discussion at hand. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.org Ewige Blumenkraft! awake ? sleep : random() & 2 ? dream : sleep; -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905163801.gw3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 10:04:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > If the complaint warrants a ban or warning, the opinions of other > listmasters is canvassed for a short period of time, and if there are no > objections, the action proceeds. If anything more than a warning occurs, it > is announced on debian-private@, which enables Debian Developers to review > the actions that listmaster@ has taken, and override them via GR. Alright. Thank you. I would like to see some public process for review machinery, and I'd like to see a requirement that rather than "no objections" there be a quorum for a banning decision, but that these actions are recorded in debian-private seems sufficient. > Mailing list bans are not done in public to avoid harming the reputation > of the individuals banned. If the individual in question wants the ban > to be disclosed publicly, they can email listmaster@, and we will do so. I'll pass this along. It seems reasonable. Thanks. -- Mason Loring Bliss ma...@blisses.orgEwige Blumenkraft! (if awake 'sleep (aref #(sleep dream) (random 2))) -- Hamlet, Act III, Scene I -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140905173029.gx3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 11:24:59AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Debian does not ban people from the mailing lists for expressing dissenting > opinions. If Zenaan told you this was the cause of his ban, then he has > deliberately misled you. No, no, he didn't suggest that. His concern was that it was done privately. I read the email thread you suggested and I am sorry that the result wasn't a public list of links to the emails that led to banning. That seemed to avoid reputation damage from web crawling but to provide a welcome transparency into the process. I took particular interest in this: https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00134.html I value the notion of forgiveness and the idea that someone can start fresh after a transgression. I also value the notion of warning - in this case, it wasn't my impression that Zenaan was told "use of this variety of language will result in banning". It was my strong impression that he was caught entirely by surprise. > In addition to Don's explanation of the current policy, you can find > discussion in the debian-project archive explaining how this policy was > arrived at: > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/10/msg00090.html Was there a non-public action that resulted in the current policy? I didn't see anything like consensus about anything resembling the current policy. The suggestions about a public list of current bans consisting of links to the emails in question seemed the most popular option. Something that wasn't brought up was the fairly clear utility of such a list in showing what bans are old enough to warrant clearing. It just strikes me that we can do better, and I'd like to see us do so. I value Debian as the most relevant vehicle for distributing and promoting free software in existence by a very wide margin. The community already values many important things and acts to do the right thing in most cases. One place where we fall down is in our application of force. PS: I saw "we" here, but I have no formal relationship with the project. I speak as an interested long-time Debian user and free software advocate. -- Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140906043644.ga3...@blisses.org
Re: debian based distro few questions
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 02:12:21PM +0200, Robert Szeliga wrote: > for example if i do litlle change in debian distro instaling by defoult > other software, remove some package can i call then my own distro with my > logo, and put that operating system on my website and obtain the money from > selling, advice on the site, donation? Debian is composed primarily of software and documentation. If you redistribute the software and documentation, you need to abide by the licenses that apply to each. You'll find helpful information here: http://dex.alioth.debian.org/ It sounds like you should also read this: https://www.debian.org/intro/free -- Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140909181911.gk3...@blisses.org
Re: CoC / procedural abuse
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:08:11PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Ean Schuessler wrote: > > Can we just generate that procmail file or at least the section in > > question? > > Not easily, no. It's difficult to imagine this presenting a problem. Procmail reads on-disk config on each invocation - it doesn't run as a daemon - and it's trivial to include additional rules files. To wit, INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/spam-sources INCLUDERC=$HOME/some_esoteric_path/procmail_rules/coc-violators etc. The code that installs a new version oc coc-violators can doubtless jump through arbitrary hoops to minimize any sort of race - swapping in a newly generated file will be awfully close to atomic in any case. The source for such a file could be as simple as a terminate date and an email address, or it might also include a pointer to the documented CoC abuse. Of course, procmail isn't forgiving in the face of syntax errors, so using an automated tool to help generate correct files can only be a good thing. If the listmaster workload is such that it's not feasible to implement reasonable limits for ban periods using existing mechanisms, then I imagine such a tool would be welcome. I'll be happy to volunteer time to help implement it, although I have no doubt that Ean is way ahead of me here. -- The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which. - G. Orwell -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2014091116.gl16...@blisses.org
Re: Buying hardware with Debian money
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > I received a few requests for hardware purchases, that I think are worth > discussing with the project as a whole in order to progress towards having > clear guidelines for what is acceptable and what isn't in terms of spending > Debian money. > > Please provide feedback on the proposed decisions -- they are not final > yet. Hello, and apologies for being so late in responding. I only noted this discussion after a DPL report, and it's taken me some time to subscribe and reply. I'd like to generally note that I'm not in favour of buying hardware for individual developers. Hardware for Debian infrastructure is obviously distinct from this, and I'd suggest that even hardware purchased for a particular role and maintained within the Debian infrastructure would be reasonable. Going down the list: > A. Memory expansion cards for m68k buildds (expected cost: 500 EUR) Infrastructure investment - reasonable. > B. Powerful machine for d-i development (expected cost: 1.5k-2k EUR?) Unreasonable. The developer should be using his own hardware. If the Project is to supply hardware, it should live within the Project's infrastructure. The developer is specifically noting that the machine will be running virtual guests for the actual development work, and as such I can't imagine why this cannot live inside the Debian infrastructure, thus making it more available to the community as a resource when this develop doesn't need it for active work. The developer argues against a remote machine, saying, "I do realize having some nice hardware racked up in some datacenter would be nice for testing purposes, but until automated regression testing is implemented, one needs to rely on clicking and typing into a VM, so as to debug/develop some framework to perform automated testing." This can readily be accomplished with VNC. The developer also notes that "prepairing an upload" requires a local machine, which, again, suggests that a machine managed within the Debian infrastructure doesn't present the requisite level of trust... This request simply bothers me. It is, I believe, too much to ask of the Project. > C. Laptop for developer (expected cost: 1k-1.5k EUR?) Again, individual developers should supply their own hardware. My perspective: I donate a small sum to SPI, earmarked expressly for Debian, monthly. I imagine there are many other people who do the same thing. Seeing these requests for gifts from the Project makes me mentally add up how many months of my contributions are going to satisfy a developer's desire for something that he'd really ought to be providing for himself. I believe in the election process and I have no illusion that I'm in a position to try to micro-manage how the Project uses its available resources, but it really won't take seeing this sort of thing more than once or twice before I redirect this particular portion of my charitable giving elsewhere. I would personally be far too embarassed to ask a non-profit group to which I volunteered development time to give me equipment for the purpose, rather than simply asking for the use of Project-managed resources if my own resources seemed somehow insufficient. -- Mason Loring Bliss (( If I have not seen as far as others, it is because ma...@blisses.org )) giants were standing on my shoulders. - Hal Abelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131217033302.ge19...@blisses.org
Re: Buying hardware with Debian money
On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 07:00:10PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > So, I really saw this purchase as purchasing "Debian infrastructure hosted > at a Developer's rather than in a datacenter". Alright, that's well-reasoned. Something I'd throw in as a possible addition to this would be a formal agreement for the use of such hardware, including such elements as a goal for the work driving the purchase, a notion of milestones to be accomplished, and an idea of at what point the hardware should be delivered back to the project or, alternately, a notion of when the hardware will be considered to have achieved its purpose and can be henceforth considered owned by the developer. Put simply, your reasoning seems valid; I'd ideally like to see some agreement in place to try to ensure that the investment pays for itself. I don't suspect this sort of thing will be a frequent event, and it's entirely possible that the developers in question are well-enough known to project management that there's a defacto character reference at work as well, which would be reasonable. Just food for thought. -- Mason Loring Bliss (( If I have not seen as far as others, it is because ma...@blisses.org )) giants were standing on my shoulders. - Hal Abelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131226004744.gd13...@blisses.org
