Debian Free Software Guidelines: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m En dash fix (via WP:JWB) |
non-notable precursor of the OSD, discussed in the history section Tags: New redirect Reverted |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Short description|Requirements for software to be part of the Debian system}} |
|||
The '''Debian Free Software Guidelines''' ('''DFSG''') is a set of guidelines that the [[Debian]] Project uses to determine whether a software license is a [[free software license]], which in turn is used to determine whether a piece of software can be included in Debian. The DFSG is part of the [[Debian Social Contract]].<ref name="1997-msg00017" /> |
|||
==The guidelines== |
|||
# Free redistribution. |
|||
# Inclusion of source code. |
|||
# Allowing for modifications and derived works. |
|||
# Integrity of the author's source code (as a compromise). |
|||
# No discrimination against persons or groups. |
|||
# No discrimination against fields of endeavor, like commercial use. |
|||
# The license needs to apply to all to whom the program is redistributed. |
|||
# License must not be specific to a product. |
|||
# License must not restrict other software. |
|||
# Example licenses: The [[GNU General Public License|GNU GPL]], [[BSD license|BSD]], and [[Artistic License|Artistic]] licenses are examples of licenses considered free.<ref name="1997-msg00017" /><ref>{{cite web |
|||
|url=http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines |
|||
|title=Debian Social Contract |
|||
|publisher=Debian |
|||
|date=2004-04-26 |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
==History== |
|||
The DFSG was first published together with the first version of the Debian Social Contract in July 1997.<ref name="1997-msg00017">{{cite web |
|||
|author=Bruce Perens |
|||
|url=http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1997/msg00017.html |
|||
|title=Debian's "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community |
|||
|work=debian-announce mailing list |
|||
|date=1997-07-04 |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
The primary author was [[Bruce Perens]], with input from the Debian developers during a month-long discussion on a private mailing list, as part of the larger Debian Social Contract. Perens was copied to an email discussion between Ean Schuessler (then of Debian) and Donnie Barnes of Red Hat, in which Schuessler accused Red Hat of never elucidating its social contract with the Linux community. Perens realized that Debian did not have any formal social contract either, and immediately started creating one. |
|||
The [[Open Source Definition]] was created by re-titling the exact text of the DFSG soon afterwards. DFSG was preceded by [[Free Software Foundation]]'s [[The Free Software Definition|Free Software Definition]], which then defined three freedoms of Free Software (Freedom Zero was added later), but this text was not used in the creation of the DFSG. Once the DFSG became the Open Source Definition, [[Richard Stallman]] saw the need to differentiate [[free software]] from [[Open-source software|open source]] and promoted the Free Software Definition.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
|author=Richard Stallman |
|||
|author-link=Richard Stallman |
|||
|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html |
|||
|title=Why "Open Source" misses the point of Free Software |
|||
|work=GNU website |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
Published versions of FSF's Free Software Definition existed as early as 1986, having been published in the first edition of the (now defunct) GNU's Bulletin.<ref>Richard M. Stallman, ''What is the Free Software Foundation?'', [https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt GNU's Bulletin, Volume 1, No.1, February 1986]</ref> The core of the Free Software Definition was the (then) Three Freedoms, which preceded the drafting and promulgation of the DFSG, were unknown to its authors.<ref>Bruce Perens: "[http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 when I had to write license guidelines for Debian, the Four Freedoms document was unknown.]"</ref> |
|||
In November 1998, [[Ian Jackson]] and others proposed several changes in a draft versioned 1.4, but the changes were never made official. Jackson stated<ref>Ian Jackson: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/11/msg01944.html Draft new DFSG], debian-devel mailing list</ref> that the problems were "loose wording" and the patch clause. |
|||
{{As of|2011}}, the document has never been revised. Nevertheless, there were changes made to the Social Contract which were considered to affect the parts of the distribution covered by the DFSG. |
|||
The Debian General Resolution 2004-003,<ref>[http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003 General Resolution: Editorial amendments to the social contract]</ref> titled "Editorial amendments to the social contract", modified the Social Contract. The proposer Andrew Suffield stated:<ref>Andrew Suffield: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/01/msg00692.html Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial) (3rd draft)], debian-vote mailing list</ref> |
|||
: "The rule is 'this resolution only changes the letter of the law, not the spirit'. Mostly it changes the wording of the social contract to better reflect what it is supposed to mean, and this is mostly in light of issues that were not considered when it was originally written." |
|||
However, the change of the sentence "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software" into "We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free" resulted in the release manager, Anthony Towns, making a practical change:<ref>Anthony Towns: [http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01929.html Social Contract GR's effect on Sarge], debian-devel mailing list</ref> |
|||
: "As [SC #1] is no longer limited to 'software', and as this decision was made by developers after and during discussion of how we should consider non-software content such as documentation and firmware, I don't believe I can justify the policy decisions to exempt documentation, firmware, or content any longer, as the Social Contract has been amended to cover all these areas." |
|||
This prompted another General Resolution, 2004–004,<ref>[http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_004 General Resolution: Sarge Release Schedule in view of GR 2004-003]</ref> in which the developers voted overwhelmingly against immediate action, and decided to postpone those changes until the next release (whose development started a year later, in June 2005). |
|||
==Application== |
|||
===Software=== |
|||
Most discussions about the DFSG happen on the ''debian-legal'' mailing list. When a Debian Developer first uploads a package for inclusion in Debian, the ''ftpmaster'' team checks the software licenses and determines whether they are in accordance with the social contract. The team sometimes confers with the debian-legal list in difficult cases. |
|||
===Non-"software" content=== |
|||
The DFSG is focused on software, but the word itself is unclear—some apply it to everything that can be expressed as a stream of bits, while a minority considers it to refer to just computer programs. Also, the existence of [[PostScript]], executable scripts, sourced documents{{clarify|reason="sourced documents" is an ambiguous technical term|date=January 2022}}, etc., greatly muddies the second definition. Thus, to break the confusion, in June 2004 the Debian project decided to explicitly apply the same principles to [[software documentation]], multimedia data and other content. The non-program content of Debian began to comply with the DFSG more strictly in Debian 4.0 (released in April 2007) and subsequent releases. |
|||
===GFDL=== |
|||
Much documentation written by the [[GNU Project]], the [[Linux Documentation Project]] and others licensed under the [[GNU Free Documentation License]] contain [[wiktionary:invariant section|invariant section]]s, which do not comply with the DFSG. This assertion is the end result of a long discussion and the General Resolution 2006-001.<ref>[http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 General Resolution: Why the GNU Free Documentation License is not suitable for Debian main]</ref> |
|||
Due to the GFDL invariant sections, content under this license must be separately contained in an [[Debian#Repositories|additional "non-free" repository]] which is not officially considered part of Debian. |
|||
===Multimedia files=== |
|||
It can be sometimes hard to define what constitutes the "source" for multimedia files, such as whether an uncompressed image file is the source of a compressed image and whether the 3D model before [[Ray tracing (graphics)|ray tracing]] is the source for its resulting image. |
|||
==''debian-legal'' tests for DFSG compliance== |
|||
The ''debian-legal'' mailing list subscribers have created some tests to check whether a license violates the DFSG. |
|||
The common tests (as described in the draft DFSG FAQ)<ref>[http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html The Debian Free Software FAQ]</ref> are the following: |
|||
* "The Desert Island test". Imagine a castaway on a desert island with a solar-powered computer. This would make it impossible to fulfill any requirement to make changes publicly available or to send patches to some particular place. This holds even if such requirements are only upon request, as the castaway might be able to receive messages but be unable to send them. To be free, software must be modifiable by this unfortunate castaway, who must also be able to legally share modifications with friends on the island. |
|||
* "The Dissident test". Consider a [[dissident]] in a totalitarian state who wishes to share a modified bit of software with fellow dissidents, but does not wish to reveal the identity of the modifier, or directly reveal the modifications themselves, or even possession of the program, to the government. Any requirement for sending source modifications to anyone other than the recipient of the modified binary—in fact, any forced distribution at all, beyond giving source to those who receive a copy of the binary—would put the dissident in danger. For Debian to consider software free it must not require any such excess distribution. |
|||
* "The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large [[evil corporation]] and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. To be free, the license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{Portal|Free and open-source software}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* [[History of free and open-source software]] |
|||
* [[Comparison of free and open-source software licenses]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
{{Wikibooks|FOSS Licensing}} |
|||
* [https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines Debian Social Contract and Free Software Guidelines] |
|||
* [http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ debian-legal list, with archives from previous discussions] |
|||
* [https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html Draft DFSG FAQ] |
|||
* [https://dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html#other-license-issues Section A.1.3 of ''Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers!''] identifies some of the major issues discussed by debian-legal. |
|||
* [https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ List of software licenses currently found in Debian] |
|||
*[https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses The DFSG and Software Licenses] Debian wiki |
|||
{{Debian}} |
|||
{{FOSS}} |
|||
[[Category:Debian|Free Software Guidelines]] |
|||
[[Category:Free and open-source software licenses|Debian]] |
|||
Revision as of 21:42, 17 May 2024
Redirect to: