[Dev] [Voting] Package freedom guidelines draft two

[Jorge Araya Navarro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

El 07/01/2013 14:06, Micha? Mas?owski escribió:
> Hello. I have written a new draft of the package freedom guidelines
> based on the discussion at [0]. I have also added a new section based
> on [1] (the mail contains a justification of option G).
>
> [0]
https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2012-December/thread.html#1037
> [1]
https://lists.parabolagnulinux.org/pipermail/dev/2013-January/001056.html
>
> Specific variants to choose
> ===========================
>
> - A, B or C text of the license rules.
>
> - D or E. E needs history rewriting, write if you want to do it if
> you choose this option.
>
> - F or G.
>
> - H or I, not needed if A.
>
> Some other sections might be controversial (e.g. source inclusion and
> build from source requirements), I assume they are supported unless
> there are specific comments against them.
>
> (There probably are also many opportunities for wording improvements.)
>
> My motivation and explanation of the TeXLive and GNU exceptions
> ===============================================================
>
> I want these rules to be possible to comply with, without ignoring
> many potential problems. I believe it is better to explicitly state
> the compromises that we make.
>
> My other motivation is to help make a blacklist rewrite similar to the
> one that we discussed before, to make it easier to find why we blacklist
> some packages and to share this information with other distros.
>
> Package freedom guidelines wiki page draft
> ==========================================
>
> These guidelines document our interpretation of what software should not
> be included in the distribution according to the
> [[Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract]] and how the included software
> should be provided.
>
> A. == License rules for source and binary packages ==
>
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works] unless they
> are correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation ("correctly" implies that
> e.g. a manual that consists only of invariant sections isn't accepted)
> or GNU packages (with e.g. nonmodifiable works of opinion).
>
> B. == License rules for source and binary packages ==
>
> All nontrivial non-license works should be
> [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html free software] or
> [http://freedomdefined.org/Definition free cultural works].
>
> Source packages might contain correctly GNU FDL-licensed documentation
> ("correctly" implies that e.g. a manual that consists only of
> invariant sections isn't accepted) or, if they are GNU packages,
> nonmodifiable works of opinion which are not included in the binary
> packages.
>

I'm not agree with this point. We have good and practicals reasons to
allow only free software on our repositories, however, any asset under a
CC No Derivate and/or CC No commercial license clauses doesn't qualifies
as a "free cultural work", assets aren't software, therefore they aren't
under the same requirements as software does.

My concern about assets under a CC No commercial license clause combined
with free software is different because I'm unsure if such material will
make illegal to sell the asset(s) within the free software binaries as a
whole. No one on CC answered such concern yet...
- -- 
Jorge Araya Navarro
Universitario, idealista y activista del Software Libre.
Siquirres, Limón, Costa Rica.
http://swt.encyclomundi.net
Diaspora*: http://diasp.org/u/shackra
identi.ca: http://parlementum.net/sweet
Jabber: shackra at jabberes.org
Skype: ¡De ninguna manera, tras de privativo, te espían!.
El software privativo en GNU/Linux, al igual que en Windows o en MacOs,
te hace un ser no-libre. Deja de engañarte, ¡¡despierta ahora!!:
http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
http://replicant.us/about/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ6yzZAAoJEL2tlgXwaqO7F6sH/j7DHTHH44Pyhn86eiATcBLC
EzD1bZz/h6lvpoBqHvS98KTbxxds8Wp9P/RCPtR+BQpOEp3WZujlHVC2XzK2RsSx
+uJHV/M3k6UrLFgvqekz+BRRiLCED69BYsIx+RnLTkWC4hHXDIclTBEN706HlnZ2
vBkFxbeqtAMxOY8kNGj4iWHGWRRyIdP9FewQcr4QeCr1VRHOWSgIOCS9jKe/TSdr
SIhxsuXVm7UgBu806qLxd3Xuux9aPY+4MfQDDan5EEP2LNSYzhQD+Ktt/qlunnDb
puvo4DQ+Q9Q3Qk+c86qlh62Ag5I1NMtWUspGVavU0Gi3fCec9xVsUZ0naaQt5HE=
=PVlI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----