Personal tools
You are here: Home Discussion Committees D Logs and Recordings Log of 2006/02/07 meeting
Document Actions

Log of 2006/02/07 meeting

by novalis last modified 2006-02-07 18:23

<novalis_dt> First order of business: elect coordinator.  Any volunteers?
<novalis_dt> (If no volunteers, I will coordinate again)
<novalis_dt> Ok, any opposed to me coordinating?
<novalis_dt> (Anyone awake?)
--> soufron ( has joined #committeed
--- novalis_dt gives voice to soufron
<obra> Go for it, novalis_dt
<novalis_dt> OK, we'll call that passage by concensus.
<novalis_dt> Here are the minutes from the previous meeting:
<novalis_dt> Did we miss anything, or can we approve those?
<dondelelcaro> can everyone state their name really quick for the record?
<novalis_dt> David Turner
<dondelelcaro> Don Armstrong
<massimotisi> Massimo Tisi
<obra> Jesse Vincent
<tomislav_medak> Tomislav Medak
<fontana> Richard Fontana
<mako> Benjamin Mako Hill
<dondelelcaro> (and again, the gobby thingie is on archimedes as the topic says if people want to help)
<novalis_dt> Right.  So, has anyone made any progress on any of the issues that we collected last time?
* dondelelcaro hasn't, unfortunatly
<novalis_dt> That leaves sedwards and obra of those present.
<obra> I'm here.
<obra> I spent time looking at the DRM wording and additional comments along those lines.
<novalis_dt> obra: Great.  Have you had a chance to write up anything about your issue?
<obra> And I'm even less convinced than I was before.
<fontana> Less convinced in what sense?
<obra> Enough of those commenting on DRM seem to believe that using any expansion of the term other than Digital Rights Management (which RMS doesn't want) is going to lead to confusion.
--> Jacob_Fenwick ( has joined #committeed
--- novalis_dt gives voice to Jacob_Fenwick
<obra> And that's about where I got to.
<novalis_dt> obra: Could further text clarify this?  Something like "Systems often referred to as Digital Rights Management"?
<novalis_dt> This could even go in the preamble, to avoid cluttering up the text.
<obra> And stick what in the body of the GPL?
<fontana> One note on this:  we have an unofficial translation of GPLv3 into (Brazilian) Portuguese in which DRM is translated as "Mecanismos de Restrio Digital". I haven't discussed that with the translators yet.
<obra> (I also have't fully digested Linus' commentary about why he hates the provision _and_ the wording)
<novalis_dt> obra: let's say the preamble said something like, "we oppose systems often referred to as digital rights management.  A more accurate name would be digital restrictions mechanisms."  Then Digital Restrictions Mechanisms could be used in the text without confusion.
<novalis_dt> obra: It would be interesting to discuss Linus's position, but I think it's mostly independent of this.
<novalis_dt> (I think Linus probably doesn't know how Trusted Computing works).
<novalis_dt> obra: Do you think you can make more progress on the wording issue on your own, or would you like to discuss it here, or what?
<obra> I can take another whack at it unless someone else has something to contrubute
<obra> contribute, even
<novalis_dt> OK, are there any further comments from the committee, or shall we table this until next meeting?
<dondelelcaro> not really
<novalis_dt> Great, tabled. 
<novalis_dt> sedwards: Have you gotten anywhere on your issue?
<obra> ok
<soufron> hop hop
<novalis_dt> soufron: Something to say?
<soufron> not now
<novalis_dt> Ah.
<novalis_dt> OK, if sedwards is idle, we can use this time discuss some of the other issues live.
<dondelelcaro> cool
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Do you have a particular one of your issues you would like input on?
<dondelelcaro> I haven't really had a chance to organize the comments on them well enough to figure out the holes on any of them; we can of course discuss Linus's comments in the contex of the anti DRM clause and freedom 0 if we want...
<novalis_dt> That sounds like it would be useful.
<novalis_dt> It seems like Linus had a few worries:
<novalis_dt> 1. That digital signatures which are only used for humans (aided by software) to verify the origin of software, would be disallowed by the draft.
<novalis_dt> 2. That the whole project of combatting DRM via the license was inappropriate.
<novalis_dt> 3. That the project of combatting DRM at all was inappropriate.
<soufron> many people thinks the same way
--> gerv ( has joined #committeed
<soufron> and I had comments from European developers
<novalis_dt> soufron: About all three of these?
<soufron> asking how the license could be compatible with European law
<soufron> novalis_dt, no it's more complicated
<novalis_dt> soufron: Which European law?
<soufron> novalis_dt, EUCD
<fontana> Compatible with what specifically in European law?
<soufron> novalis_dt, for example the french transposition of EUCD
<novalis_dt> soufron: Can you give me some examples?  Is there a translation of the French law?
<soufron> novalis_dt, the current draft would forbid any GPL3 software development
<dondelelcaro> soufron: why?
<soufron> no there is no translation as far as I know
<soufron> but the EUCD is in english
<novalis_dt> soufron: Can you explain a bit what the problem is?
<soufron> because they inserted an article to forbid the development of software allowing to circumvent DRM
<soufron> and whether you do that technically or by a license is the same thing
<soufron> ie
<dondelelcaro> soufron: are we talking about it in the context of the anti DMCA clause? or the DRM keys thing?
<soufron> I don't know as of today
<soufron> I prepared nothing on this
<soufron> and I just begun investigating this this afternoon
<soufron> I wondered if someone else begun talking about it already
<novalis_dt> soufron: Would you be willing to investigate and report back to the committee next week?
<soufron> that's not the case
<soufron> of course
<novalis_dt> soufron: I haven't heard anything about anyone else talking about this, so I would be interested to hear your comments.
<novalis_dt> OK, so putting the EUCD issues on the back burner for now, there are still Linus's issues.
<novalis_dt> We don't want to forbid digital signatures which are intended for human consumption.  I think that's something we can all agree on.
<novalis_dt> (right?)
<novalis_dt> Does the current draft forbid these?  I think it could be plausibly read either way.
<dondelelcaro> right; and even if it's digital signatures intended for machine consumption which can be overridden by a human.
<obra> Or is it just "digitial signatures designed to prevent a user from knowingly modifying the system"?
<dondelelcaro> (overridden in a manufacturer provided mechanism, of course... DMCA should not be activated)
<novalis_dt> obra: I think something like that is the goal of the text.
<dondelelcaro> obra: right
<novalis_dt> So, there will probably be a recommendation for a minor language tweak there.
<dondelelcaro> yeah.
<novalis_dt> Are there more fundamental issues with the section?
<dondelelcaro> that's the first issue with those keys and allowing authentication;
<novalis_dt> Does anyone here correspond with Linus?
<novalis_dt> (and would be willing to get his opinions on various aspects of the issue)?
<dondelelcaro> the second issue is of course the relationship between this clause and freedom 0, ie, the freedom to use the software in devices which have implemented DRM...
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Are you worried about the freedom of end-users who are not responsible for the DRM?
<novalis_dt> Or of the people who attempt to put these restrictions?
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: not me personally; I'm talking about the other concerns which have been raised about it
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Ah.  Do you see the bulk of concerns being about the former, or the latter?
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I think it's pretty clear that the clause is actually protecting the freedom of end-users; but most of the people who have complained are concerned with the latter
<novalis_dt> Or some middle class -- those who didn't create the restrictions, but are in a privileged position to use them?  I am thinking here of a closed system where anyone who wishes to develop software must pay some fee; some people are willing to pay that fee.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Do you have opinopns about these areas?  Do you think the comments in the system cover the range of viewpoints?
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I have opinions; I think the comments in the system are beginning to cover the range of viewpoints...
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I really haven't had a chance to go through them entirely and organize them to make sure of this fact, though.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: What are your thoughts on the matter? 
<novalis_dt> (of course, others are welcome to chime in here)
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I'm thinking that making sure that the user is able to modify the software and deploy the modifications on the device/system is important; however, the way the clause is currently written seems to be set from a position of navigating the path to that end state, instead of defining the end state.
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: There's certainly some end-state description in there.  "such that its functioning in all circumstances is identical to that of the work, except as altered by your modifications"
<novalis_dt> But perhaps the focus ought to be more on that.
<novalis_dt> Anyone have any more comments on DRM for this session?  Of course, we'll re-open when we hear what Don comes back with.
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: right...
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: I'm also not sure that we can guarantee that it's "functioning in all circumstances is identical" because, FE, there may be a warning that you're using code which isn't authenticated or something...
<dondelelcaro> but more thought is needed. ;-)
<novalis_dt> Sure, perhaps the description of the end-state needs to change.
<dondelelcaro> yeah
<novalis_dt> (One could do something like section 7's list of allowable license terms, with a list of allowable functionality changes -- but that's probably overkill, since warnings seems to be the major thing that people care about)
<dondelelcaro> anyway, I'll try to get things more organized there into a better state; I'll probaly end up writing things up in latex and putting them onto my svn server (well, they'll end up there regardless) so if people want to offer suggestions, feel free.
<novalis_dt> Perfect.
<novalis_dt> sedwards: Are you back?
<dondelelcaro> sitll idle for 3 hours...
<novalis_dt> Alas.
<dondelelcaro> is anyone else alive? ;-)
<novalis_dt> Any other issues before we adjourn?
<massimotisi> I have a question
<dondelelcaro> did we approve last week's minutes?
<novalis_dt> dondelelcaro: Oh, I don't think we ever finished that.
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: Go ahead.
<massimotisi> browsing the system I found many duplicated comments..
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: Do you mean from different users, or the same user?
<mako> i'm here
<massimotisi> different users
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: From different users, when we upgrade one comment to an issue, we can list all the duplicates as children.
--> biella ( has joined #committeed
<massimotisi> same problem with different words
<novalis_dt> Then when the issue is eventually resolved, the child comments will be resolved too.
<massimotisi> i'd like to mark them as children without upgrading them
<novalis_dt> fontana: Is there any reason we can't do that?
<mako> novalis_dt: i've been interested in taking up some sort of role in terms of comments on the affero-bit..
<massimotisi> only for making some order..
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: It is a good idea.
 mako marcell massimotisi
<novalis_dt> mako: good idea.  Hang on a moment, and we'll do a vote on that.
<fontana> novalis_dt: no reason I am aware of... I think that is already being done a little bit by other committees
<mako> novalis_dt: ok
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: OK, then you can go ahead and do that.  If they later need to be reoganized, they can be.
<massimotisi> Ok, my question is: have I to report this changes to the committee or I just do it ?
<massimotisi> ok
<novalis_dt> massimotisi: I don't think you need to report, so long as your combinations are noncontroversial.
<mako> novalis_dt: josh triplett claims he submitted a proposal that i think i like.. i only just read it 5 minute ago :)
<dondelelcaro> mako: heh. I was almost going to volunteer you for that
<novalis_dt> (which it sounds like they would be)
<novalis_dt> mako: Number?
<dondelelcaro> novalis_dt: has some of them
<mako> novalis_dt: let me look through the mailbox.. i'm reading a pasted version
<dondelelcaro> 420 FE
<mako> dondelelcaro: perfect
<novalis_dt> I think there are two issues here:
<mako> dondelelcaro: yah, i've been getting the courage to volunteer myself for this for the last couple weeks :)
<novalis_dt> 1. What should GPLv3 say?
<novalis_dt> 2. What should the AGPL say?
<mako> novalis_dt: yes
<fontana> Also a broader issue: what does compatibility with the GPL mean
<novalis_dt> GPLv3 wants to be compatible with a broad range of licenses -- some of which use a strategy similar to Affero's, some of which use a strategy similar to Apple's.
<novalis_dt> (hasn't Debian approved some Apple license for Rendezvous?)
<novalis_dt> Ok, so does anyone object to mako being issue steward for that subsection of section 7, and any related AGPL issues that fall out of that?
<mako> novalis_dt: i'd like to solve 1 now and work toward a solution to 2 as well
<mako> for my own information, who is reponsible for revising the AGPL?
<mako> if/when that needs to happen
<novalis_dt> mako: I haven't heard anything about it.
<mako> and i understand that we have more important issues to deal with
<mako> i mean, who would i talk to
<novalis_dt> mako: Probably ultimately Eben and Richard Stallman.
<mako> if i wanted to provide a functionally equivalent text that was more easily stomached by the community :)
<novalis_dt> mako: Do you think that your metalicense language for section 7 is likely to not cover the AGPL as written, but would cover some hypothetical rewritten version?
<fontana> Of course existing section 7 itself doesn' t cover the AGPL as written
<mako> novalis_dt: i think it would cover the current AGPL and any future version
<mako> but i'm not entirely sure where the text will end up
<novalis_dt> fontana: Why not?
<fontana> novalis_dt: for reasons I thought you were the first to point out... but I might be misremembering
<novalis_dt> fontana: I don't recall mentioning anything about this.
<fontana> Hmm.
<novalis_dt> fontana: Unless you mean the upgrade clause?
<fontana> Yes, that's basically it.
<novalis_dt> Oh.
<fontana> sort of a side issue.
<mako> novalis_dt: but yes, the example texts i've seen seem to cover the AGPL as written
<novalis_dt> Oh, I assume that the v3 final will correct that by saying that works that were under the AGPL get their (2)(d) carried along.
<mako> we can solve that problem first and then work on a good AGPL
<novalis_dt> mako: That's fine with me. 
 mako marcell massimotisi
<novalis_dt> Is your goal to have a metalicense which forbids linking to anything that a certain mailing list dislikes?
<mako> no
<novalis_dt> mako: OK.  Because I wouldn't wish that task on anyone :)
<mako> my goal is to have a metalicense that a certain mailing list likes
<mako> and set of commonly used licenses that a certain mailing likes
<mako> in that order
<novalis_dt> Gotcha.
<mako> i'm interested in this issue in general though
<mako> have been for quite a while
 mako marcell massimotisi
<novalis_dt> mako: I'm interested too.  I think it's the future of software freedom.
<novalis_dt> And I can't wait to see what you come up with.
<mako> i'd like something that's in the spirit of GPL and updated to the current technological reality :)
<novalis_dt> OK, since we've been a bit disorganized here, let me just clean up some loose ends. Last call for objections to mako taking this issue?
<novalis_dt> OK, passed by concensus.
<novalis_dt> Any objection to the minutes from last meeting?
<novalis_dt> OK, passed by concensus.
<novalis_dt> Anything else before we adjourn?
<obra> Have a good week
<novalis_dt> Ok, adjourned.  We'll meet again the same time next week.


Powered by Plone

This site conforms to the following standards: