Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #12394 > unrolled thread

Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Donald Norwood <donald@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 11:50 +0200
    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Dominik George <natureshadow@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 14:50 +0200
      Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Agata Erminia Pennisi <agataerminiapennisi@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 15:20 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 16:50 +0200
    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 18:00 +0200
      Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Donald Norwood <donald@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 02:00 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Hanno 'Rince' Wagner <wagner@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 08:40 +0200
    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 18:40 +0200
      Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Geert Stappers <stappers@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 20:10 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 08:30 +0200
          Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 23:10 +0200
            collaboration with Gitlab (was: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership) Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 00:10 +0200
              Re: collaboration with Gitlab (was: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership) Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 00:40 +0200
              Re: collaboration with Gitlab (was: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership) Paulo Henrique de Lima Santana <phls@debian.org> - 2021-07-27 14:10 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-07-28 13:10 +0200
      Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Donald Norwood <donald@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 02:30 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Adrian Bunk <bunk@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 08:40 +0200
          Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Marc Haber <mh+debian-project@zugschlus.de> - 2021-07-26 12:20 +0200
            Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 13:20 +0200
              Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-07-26 16:00 +0200
                Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 18:10 +0200
                  Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Ansgar <ansgar@43-1.org> - 2021-07-26 21:20 +0200
                    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Jonathan Carter <jcc@debian.org> - 2021-07-26 22:20 +0200
                    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> - 2021-07-27 01:10 +0200
        Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Pierre-Elliott Bécue <peb@debian.org> - 2021-07-28 13:10 +0200
    Re: Debian and GitLab Open Source Partnership Micha Lenk <micha@debian.org> - 2021-07-25 21:30 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#12411

Hi Ansgar

On 2021/07/26 15:50, Ansgar wrote:
> It is indeed very explicit about including non-free packages if
> possible:
> 
> +---
> | We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in
> | these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on
> | their CDs.
> +---
> 
> I believe the licenses of most firmware should pose no problem for
> their inclusion on Debian's CD images.

The text you quoted covers 3rd party distributors who wish to include 
the firmware on media that they would distribute (which would not be 
considered official Debian media either).

For official media, it would go against #1 of the SC and (depending on 
the exact firmware) at least #2 and #3 of the DGSG.

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12412

On Mon, 2021-07-26 at 16:56 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
> On 2021/07/26 15:50, Ansgar wrote:
> > It is indeed very explicit about including non-free packages if
> > possible:
> > 
> > +---
> > > We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the
> > > packages in
> > > these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on
> > > their CDs.
> > +---
> > 
> > I believe the licenses of most firmware should pose no problem for
> > their inclusion on Debian's CD images.
> 
> The text you quoted covers 3rd party distributors who wish to
> includethe firmware on media that they would distribute (which would
> not be considered official Debian media either).

It doesn't say "3rd party CD manufacturers", so I assume it means all
groups creating CD images.

> For official media, it would go against #1 of the SC and (depending
> on the exact firmware) at least #2 and #3 of the DGSG.

Including files for optional use does not imply that non-free
components are required, so it doesn't violate SC #1: We already
include non-free packages in the archive. Surely taking the archive and
putting it on a BluRay doesn't turn the free system available from the
archive into a non-free system that requires use of non-free
components.

Obviously packages in non-free don't need to comply with the DFSG, no
matter whether including in the archive or on BluRay images.

Ansgar

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12413

On 2021/07/26 20:27, Ansgar wrote:
> Obviously packages in non-free don't need to comply with the DFSG

Indeed they don't, because non-free isn't formally part of Debian.

-Jonathan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12418

On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 08:27:33PM +0200, Ansgar wrote:
>On Mon, 2021-07-26 at 16:56 +0200, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>
>> For official media, it would go against #1 of the SC and (depending
>> on the exact firmware) at least #2 and #3 of the DGSG.
>
>Including files for optional use does not imply that non-free
>components are required, so it doesn't violate SC #1: We already
>include non-free packages in the archive. Surely taking the archive and
>putting it on a BluRay doesn't turn the free system available from the
>archive into a non-free system that requires use of non-free
>components.
>
>Obviously packages in non-free don't need to comply with the DFSG, no
>matter whether including in the archive or on BluRay images.

Can we please stop exploring this rabbit hole until after the bullseye
release?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
< liw> everything I know about UK hotels I learned from "Fawlty Towers"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12421

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi Donald,

Thanks for taking the time to answer to me, and sorry that I did not
reply earlier, I'm a bit swamped IRL. :)

Donald Norwood <donald@debian.org> writes:

> Hi Pierre,
>
> On 7/25/21 12:19 PM, Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Out of the blue, without any more context and content, I am not sure to
>> be happy with this news.
>> 
>> To me, such a partnership is something quite stronger than sponsorship
>> and I'd be a bit ill-at-ease with it being done without the whole Debian
>> Members being consulted.
>> 
>> Last but not least, what kind of data would be shared regarding how we
>> use gitlab in Debian?
>> 
> Apologies if you thought this was out of the blue, we are currently and
> still in the process of bringing the awareness of the partnership to the
>  community prior to the main announcement, but as with any news it is
> about the timing of the message delivery.
>
> Rest assured there were several hands on our side that went into the
> initial discussions from Debian Partners to DebConf Sponsors, to the
> DPL, and Press, all of us tasked with seeing things through that will
> benefit the project.
>
> We have many Partners[1] working with and helping to support Debian,
> this particular partnership starts with each of us promoting each others
> conferences, sponsorships, and then expanding the relationship forward
> into the future with the other items mentioned.
>
> The data sharing as I understand it is only toward a Case Study of how
> Debian uses GitLab, it would be with information that we provide to them
> on our use, selection, and goals. As more information about the Case
> Study becomes available we will be sure to share it with the community.
>
> [1]https://www.debian.org/partners/

It is not my objective to make things change or to put the principle of
partnership into question. But to me, promoting (ie advertising) Gitlab
activities is a bit more than what we do for other partners. Am I wrong
here? I could have missed some things.

Thanks!
--
PEB

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12401

Hi Donald and publicity team,

thank you for taking initiative on talking about the upcoming GitLab 
Open Source Partnership. This is great news and I am curious to see how 
Gitlab is now helping us to spread the word about Debian and its mission.

Best regards,
Micha

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web