Search Results: "cts"

10 March 2017

Mart n Ferrari: SunCamp happening again this May!

As I announced in mailing lists a few days ago, the Debian SunCamp (DSC2017) is happening again this May. SunCamp different to most other Debian events. Instead of a busy schedule of talks, SunCamp focuses on the hacking and socialising aspect, without making it just a Debian party/vacation.
DSC2016 - Hacking and discussing
The idea is to have 4 very productive days, staying in a relaxing and comfy environment, working on your own projects, meeting with your team, or presenting to fellow Debianites your most recent pet project.
DSC2016 - Tincho talking about Prometheus
We have tried to make this event the simplest event possible, both for organisers and attendees. There will be no schedule, except for the meal times at the hotel. But these can be ignored too, there is a lovely bar that serves snacks all day long, and plenty of restaurants and caf s around the village. DSC2016 - Hacking and discussing The SunCamp is an event to get work done, but there will be time for relaxing and socialising too.
DSC2016 - Well deserved siesta
DSC2016 - Playing P tanque
Do you fancy a hack-camp in a place like this? Swimming pool Caf Caf  terrace One of the things that makes the event simple, is that we have negotiated a flat price for accommodation that includes usage of all the facilities in the hotel, and optionally food. We will give you a booking code, and then you arrange your accommodation as you please, you can even stay longer if you feel like it! The rooms are simple but pretty, and everything has been renovated very recently. Room Room view We are not preparing a talks programme, but we will provide the space and resources for talks if you feel inclined to prepare one. You will have a huge meeting room, divided in 4 areas to reduce noise, where you can hack, have team discussions, or present talks. Hacklab Hacklab Do you want to see more pictures? Check the full gallery
Debian SunCamp 2017 Hotel Anabel, LLoret de Mar, Province of Girona, Catalonia, Spain May 18-21, 2017

Tempted already? Head to the wikipage and register now, it is only 2 months away! Please try to reserve your room before the end of March. The hotel has reserved a number of rooms for us until that time. You can reserve a room after March, but we can't guarantee the hotel will still have free rooms. Comment

9 March 2017

Arturo Borrero Gonz lez: Netfilter in GSoC 2017

logo Great news! The Netfilter project has been elected by Google to be a mentoring organization in this year Google Summer of Code program. Following the pattern of the last years, Google seems to realise and support the importance of this software project in the Linux ecosystem. I will be proudly mentoring some student this 2017 year, along with Eric Leblond and of course Pablo Neira. The focus of the Netfilter project has been in nftables for the last years, and the students joining our community will likely work on the new framework. For prospective students: there is an ideas document which you must read. The policy in the Netfilter project is to encourage students to send patches before they are elected to join us. Therefore, a good starting point is to subscribe to the mailing lists, download the git code repositories, build by hand the projects (compilation) and look at the bugzilla (registration required). Due to this type of internships and programs, I believe is interesting to note the ascending involvement of women in the last years. I can remember right now: Ana Rey (@AnaRB), Shivani Bhardwaj (@tuxish), Laura Garc a and Elise Lennion (blog). On a side note, Debian is not participating in GSoC this year :-(

8 March 2017

Thorsten Glaser: Updated Debian packaging example: PHP webapp with dbconfig-common

Since I use this as base for other PHP packages like SimKolab, I ve updated my packaging example with: The old features (Apache 2.2 and 2.4 support, dbconfig-common, etc.) are, of course, still there. Support for other webservers could be contributed by you, and I could extend the autoloader to work at runtime (using dpkg triggers) to include dependencies as packaged in other Debian packages. See, nobody needs composer ! Feel free to check it out, play around with it, install it, test it, send me improvement patches and feature requests, etc. it s here with a mirror at GitHub (since I wrote it myself and the licence is permissive enough anyway). This posting and the code behind it are sponsored by my employer tarent.

Antoine Beaupr : An update to GitHub's terms of service

On February 28th, GitHub published a brand new version of its Terms of Service (ToS). While the first draft announced earlier in February didn't generate much reaction, the new ToS raised concerns that they may break at least the spirit, if not the letter, of certain free-software licenses. Digging in further reveals that the situation is probably not as dire as some had feared. The first person to raise the alarm was probably Thorsten Glaser, a Debian developer, who stated that the "new GitHub Terms of Service require removing many Open Source works from it". His concerns are mainly about section D of the document, in particular section D.4 which states:
You grant us and our legal successors the right to store and display your Content and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service.
Section D.5 then goes on to say:
[...] You grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality

ToS versus GPL The concern here is that the ToS bypass the normal provisions of licenses like the GPL. Indeed, copyleft licenses are based on copyright law which forbid users from doing anything with the content unless they comply with the license, which forces, among other things, "share alike" properties. By granting GitHub and its users rights to reproduce content without explicitly respecting the original license, the ToS may allow users to bypass the copyleft nature of the license. Indeed, as Joey Hess, author of git-annex, explained :
The new TOS is potentially very bad for copylefted Free Software. It potentially neuters it entirely, so GPL licensed software hosted on Github has an implicit BSD-like license
Hess has since removed all his content (mostly mirrors) from GitHub. Others disagree. In a well-reasoned blog post, Debian developer Jonathan McDowell explained the rationale behind the changes:
My reading of the GitHub changes is that they are driven by a desire to ensure that GitHub are legally covered for the things they need to do with your code in order to run their service.
This seems like a fair point to make: GitHub needs to protect its own rights to operate the service. McDowell then goes on to do a detailed rebuttal of the arguments made by Glaser, arguing specifically that section D.5 "does not grant [...] additional rights to reproduce outside of GitHub". However, specific problems arise when we consider that GitHub is a private corporation that users have no control over. The "Services" defined in the ToS explicitly "refers to the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub". The term "Services" is therefore not limited to the current set of services. This loophole may actually give GitHub the right to bypass certain provisions of licenses used on GitHub. As Hess detailed in a later blog post:
If Github tomorrow starts providing say, an App Store service, that necessarily involves distribution of software to others, and they put my software in it, would that be allowed by this or not? If that hypothetical Github App Store doesn't sell apps, but licenses access to them for money, would that be allowed under this license that they want to my software?
However, when asked on IRC, Bradley M. Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy explained that "ultimately, failure to comply with a copyleft license is a copyright infringement" and that the ToS do outline a process to deal with such infringement. Some lawyers have also publicly expressed their disagreement with Glaser's assessment, with Richard Fontana from Red Hat saying that the analysis is "basically wrong". It all comes down to the intent of the ToS, as Kuhn (who is not a lawyer) explained:
any license can be abused or misused for an intent other than its original intent. It's why it matters to get every little detail right, and I hope Github will do that.
He went even further and said that "we should assume the ambiguity in their ToS as it stands is favorable to Free Software". The ToS are in effect since February 28th; users "can accept them by clicking the broadcast announcement on your dashboard or by continuing to use GitHub". The immediacy of the change is one of the reasons why certain people are rushing to remove content from GitHub: there are concerns that continuing to use the service may be interpreted as consent to bypass those licenses. Hess even hosted a separate copy of the ToS [PDF] for people to be able to read the document without implicitly consenting. It is, however, unclear how a user should remove their content from the GitHub servers without actually agreeing to the new ToS.

CLAs When I read the first draft, I initially thought there would be concerns about the mandatory Contributor License Agreement (CLA) in section D.5 of the draft:
[...] unless there is a Contributor License Agreement to the contrary, whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those terms.
I was concerned this would establish the controversial practice of forcing CLAs on every GitHub user. I managed to find a post from a lawyer, Kyle E. Mitchell, who commented on the draft and, specifically, on the CLA. He outlined issues with wording and definition problems in that section of the draft. In particular, he noted that "contributor license agreement is not a legal term of art, but an industry term" and "is a bit fuzzy". This was clarified in the final draft, in section D.6, by removing the use of the CLA term and by explicitly mentioning the widely accepted norm for licenses: "inbound=outbound". So it seems that section D.6 is not really a problem: contributors do not need to necessarily delegate copyright ownership (as some CLAs require) when they make a contribution, unless otherwise noted by a repository-specific CLA. An interesting concern he raised, however, was with how GitHub conducted the drafting process. A blog post announced the change on February 7th with a link to a form to provide feedback until the 21st, with a publishing deadline of February 28th. This gave little time for lawyers and developers to review the document and comment on it. Users then had to basically accept whatever came out of the process as-is. Unlike every software project hosted on GitHub, the ToS document is not part of a Git repository people can propose changes to or even collaboratively discuss. While Mitchell acknowledges that "GitHub are within their rights to update their terms, within very broad limits, more or less however they like, whenever they like", he sets higher standards for GitHub than for other corporations, considering the community it serves and the spirit it represents. He described the process as:
[...] consistent with the value of CYA, which is real, but not with the output-improving virtues of open process, which is also real, and a great deal more pleasant.
Mitchell also explained that, because of its position, GitHub can have a major impact on the free-software world.
And as the current forum of preference for a great many developers, the knock-on effects of their decisions throw big weight. While GitHub have the wheel and they ve certainly earned it for now they can do real damage.
In particular, there have been some concerns that the ToS change may be an attempt to further the already diminishing adoption of the GPL for free-software projects; on GitHub, the GPL has been surpassed by the MIT license. But Kuhn believes that attitudes at GitHub have begun changing:
GitHub historically had an anti-copyleft culture, which was created in large part by their former and now ousted CEO, Preston-Warner. However, recently, I've seen people at GitHub truly reach out to me and others in the copyleft community to learn more and open their minds. I thus have a hard time believing that there was some anti-copyleft conspiracy in this ToS change.

GitHub response However, it seems that GitHub has actually been proactive in reaching out to the free software community. Kuhn noted that GitHub contacted the Conservancy to get its advice on the ToS changes. While he still thinks GitHub should fix the ambiguities quickly, he also noted that those issues "impact pretty much any non-trivial Open Source and Free Software license", not just copylefted material. When reached for comments, a GitHub spokesperson said:
While we are confident that these Terms serve the best needs of the community, we take our users' feedback very seriously and we are looking closely at ways to address their concerns.
Regardless, free-software enthusiasts have other concerns than the new ToS if they wish to use GitHub. First and foremost, most of the software running GitHub is proprietary, including the JavaScript served to your web browser. GitHub also created a centralized service out of a decentralized tool (Git). It has become the largest code hosting service in the world after only a few years and may well have become a single point of failure for free software collaboration in a way we have never seen before. Outages and policy changes at GitHub can have a major impact on not only the free-software world, but also the larger computing world that relies on its services for daily operation. There are now free-software alternatives to GitHub. GitLab.com, for example, does not seem to have similar licensing issues in its ToS and GitLab itself is free software, although based on the controversial open core business model. The GitLab hosting service still needs to get better than its grade of "C" in the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations (and it is being worked on); other services like GitHub and SourceForge score an "F". In the end, all this controversy might have been avoided if GitHub was generally more open about the ToS development process and gave more time for feedback and reviews by the community. Terms of service are notorious for being confusing and something of a legal gray area, especially for end users who generally click through without reading them. We should probably applaud the efforts made by GitHub to make its own ToS document more readable and hope that, with time, it will address the community's concerns.
Note: this article first appeared in the Linux Weekly News.

7 March 2017

Daniel Stender: Remotely deploy a WSGI application (as a Debian package) with Ansible

This is a mini workshop as an introduction into using Ansible for the administration of Debian systems. As an example it s shown how this configuration management tool can be used to remotely set up a simple WSGI application running on an Apache web server on a Debian installation to make it available on the net. The application which is used as an example is httpbin by Runscope. This is an useful HTTP request service for the development of web software or any other purposes which features a number of specific endpoints that can be used for different testing matters. For example, the address http://<address>/user-agent of httpbin returns the user agent identification of the client program which has been used to query it (that s taken from the header of the request). There are official instances of this request server running on the net, like the one at http://httpbin.org/. WSGI is a widespread standard for programming web application in Python, and httpbin is implemented in Python using the Flask web framework. The basis of the workshop is a simple base installation of an up-to-date Debian 8 Jessie on a demonstration host, and the latest official release of that is 8.7. As a first step, the installation has to be switched over to the testing branch of Debian, because the Debian packages of httpbin are comparatively new and are going to be introduced into the stable branch of the archive the first time with the upcoming major release number 9 Stretch . After that, the Apache packages which are needed to make it available (apache2 and libapache2-mod-wsgi other web servers of course could be used instead), and which are not part of a base installation, are installed from the archive. The web server then gets launched remotely, and the httpbin package will be also pulled and the service is going to be integrated into Apache to run on that. To achieve that, two configuration files must be deployed on the target system, and a few additional operations are needed to get everything working together. Every step is preconfigured within Ansible so that the whole process could be launched by a single command on the control node, and could be run on a single or a number of comparable target machines automatically and reproducibly. If a server is needed for trying this workshop out, straightforward cloud server instances are available on the net for example at DigitalOcean, but let me underline this there are other cloud providers which offer the same things, too! If it s needed for experiments or other purposes only for a limited time, low priced droplets are available here which are billed by the hour. After being registered, the machine(s) which is/are wanted could be set up easily over the web interface (choose Debian 8.7 as OS), but there are also command line clients available like doctl (which is not yet available as a Debian package). For the convenient use of a droplet the user should generate a SSH key pair on the local machine, first:
$ ssh-keygen -t rsa -b 4096 -C "john@doe.com" -f ~/.ssh/mykey
The public part of the key ~/.ssh/mykey.pub then can be uploaded into the user account before the droplet is going to be created, it then could be integrated automatically. There is a good introduction on the whole process available in the excellent tutorial series serversforhackers.com, here. Ansible then can use the SSH keypair to login into a droplet without the need to type in the password every time. On a cloud server like this carrying a Debian base system, the examples in this workshop can be tried well. Ansible works client-less and doesn t need to be installed on the remote system but only on the control node, however a Python 2.7 interpreter is needed there (the base system of DigitalOcean includes that). For that Ansible can do anything on them, remote servers which are going to be controlled must be added to /etc/ansible/hosts. This is a configuration file in the INI format for DNS names and IP addresses. For a flexible organisation of the server inventory it s possible to group hosts here, IP ranges could be given, and optional variables can be used among other useful things (the default file contains a couple of examples). One or a couple of servers (in Ansible they are called hosts ) on which something particular is going to be happening (like httpbin is going to be installed) could be added like this (the group name is arbitrary):
[httpbin]
192.0.2.0
Whether Ansible could communicate with the hosts in the group and actually can operate on them can be verified by just pinging them like this:
$ ansible httpbin -m ping -u root --private-key=~/.ssh/mykey
192.0.2.0   SUCCESS =>  
    "changed": false, 
    "ping": "pong"
 
The command succeeded well, so it appears there isn t no significant problem regarding this machine. The return value changed:false indicates that there haven t been any changes on that host as a result of the execution of this command. Next to ping there are several other modules which could be used with the command line tool ansible the same way, and these modules are actually something like the core components of Ansible. The module shell for example can be used to execute shell commands on the remote machine like uname to get some system information returned from the server:
$ ansible httpbin -m shell -a "uname -a" -u root --private-key=~/.ssh/mykey
192.0.2.0   SUCCESS   rc=0 >>
Linux debian-512mb-fra1-01 3.16.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.36-1+deb8u2 (2016-10-19) x86_64 GNU/Linux
In the same way, the module apt could be used to remotely install packages. But with that there s no major advantage over other software products that offer a similar functionality, and using those modules on the command line is just the basics of Ansible usage. Playbooks in Ansible are YAML scripts for the manipulation of the registered hosts in /etc/ansible/hosts. Different tasks can be defined here for successive processing, like a simple playbook for changing the package source from stable to testing for example goes like this:
---
 - hosts: httpbin
   tasks:
   - name: remove "jessie" package source
     apt_repository: repo='deb http://mirrors.digitalocean.com/debian jessie main' state=absent
   - name: add "testing" package source
     apt_repository: repo='deb http://httpredir.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free' state=present
   - name: upgrade packages
     apt: update_cache=yes upgrade=dist
First, like used with the CLI tool ansible above, the targeted host group httpbin is chosen. The default user root and the SSH key could be fixed here, too, to spare the need to give them on the command line. Then there are three tasks defined to get worked down consecutively: With the module apt_repository the preset package source jessie is removed from /etc/apt/sources.list. Then, a new package source for the testing archive gets added to /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ by using the same module (by the way, mirrors.digitalocean.org also provides testing, though, and that might be faster). After that, the apt module is used to upgrade the package inventory (it performs apt-get dist-upgrade), after an update of the package cache has taken place (by running apt-get update) A playbook like this (the filename is arbitrary, but commonly carries the suffix .yml) can be run by the CLI tool ansible-playbook, like this:
$ ansible-playbook httpbin.yml -u root --private-key=~/.ssh/mykey
Ansible then works down the individual plays of the tasks on the remote server(s) top-down, and due to a high speed net connection and SSD block device hardware the change of the system to being a Debian Testing base installation only takes around a minute to complete in the cloud. While working, Ansible puts out status reports for the individual operations. If certain changes on the base system have been taken place already like when a playbook is run through one more time, the modules of course sense that and return just the information that the system haven t been changed because it s already there what have been wanted to change to. Beyond the basic playbook which is shown here there are more advanced features like register and when available to bind the execution of a play to the error-free result of a previous one. The apt module then can be used in the playbook to install the three needed binary packages one after another:
   - name: install apache2
     apt: pkg=apache2 state=present
   - name: install mod_wsgi
     apt: pkg=libapache2-mod-wsgi state=present
   - name: install httpbin
     apt: pkg=python-httpbin state=present
The Debian packages are configured in a way that the Apache web server is running immediately after installation, and the Apache module mod_wsgi is automatically integrated. If that would be otherwise desired, there are Ansible modules available for operating on Apache which can reverse this if that is wanted. By the way, after the package have been installed the httpbin server can be launched with python -m httpbin.core, but this runs only a mini web server which is not suitable for productive use. To get httpbin running on the Apache web server two configuration files are needed. They could be set up in the project directory on the control node and then uploaded onto the remote machine with another Ansible module. The file httpbin.wsgi (the name is again arbitrary) contains only a single line which is the starter for the WSGI application to run:
from httpbin import app as application
The module copy can be used to deploy that script on the host, while the target folder /var/www/httpbin must be set up before that by the module file. In addition to that, a separate user account like httpbin (the name is also arbitrary but picked up in the other config file) is needed to run it, and the module user can set this up. The demonstrational playbook continues, and the plays which are performing these three operations are going like this:
   - name: mkdir /var/www/httpbin
     file: path=/var/www/httpbin state=directory
   - name: set up user "httpbin"
     user: name=httpbin
   - name: copy WSGI starter
     copy: src=httpbin.wsgi dest=/var/www/httpbin/httpbin.wsgi owner=httpbin group=httpbin mode=0644 
Another configuration script httpbin.conf is needed for Apache on the remote server to include the WSGI application httpbin running as a virtual host. It goes like this:
<VirtualHost *>
 WSGIDaemonProcess httpbin user=httpbin group=httpbin threads=5
 WSGIScriptAlias / /var/www/httpbin/httpbin.wsgi
 <Directory /var/www/httpbin>
  WSGIProcessGroup httpbin
  WSGIApplicationGroup % GLOBAL 
  Order allow,deny
  Allow from all
 </Directory>
</VirtualHost>
This file needs to be copied into the folder /etc/apache2/sites-available on the host, which already exists when the apache2 package is installed. The remaining operations which are missing to get anything running together are: The default welcome screen of Apache blocks anything else and should be disabled by Apache s CLI tool a2dissite. And after that, the new virtual host needs to be activated with the complementary tool a2ensite both could be run remotely by the module command. Then the Apache server on the remote machine must be restarted to read in the new configuration. You ve guessed it already, that s all easy to perform with Ansible:
   - name: deploy configuration script
     copy: src=httpbin.conf dest=/etc/apache2/sites-available owner=root group=root mode=0644
   - name: deactivate default welcome screen
     command: a2dissite 000-default.conf
     
   - name: activate httpbin virtual host
     command: a2ensite httpbin.conf
   - name: restart Apache
     service: name=apache2 state=restarted 
That s it. After this playbook has been performed by Ansible on a (or several) freshly set up remote Debian base installation completely, then the httpbin request server is available running on the Apache web server and could be queried from anywhere by a web browser, or for example by curl:
$ curl http://192.0.2.0/user-agent
 
  "user-agent": "curl/7.50.1"
 
With the broad set of Ansible modules and the playbooks a lot of tasks can be accomplished like the example problem which has been explained here. But the range of functions of Ansible however is still even more comprehensive, but to discuss that would have blown the frame of this blog post. For example the playbooks offer more advanced features like event handler which can be used for recurring operations like the restart of Apache in more extensive projects. And beyond playbooks, templates could be set up in the roles which can behave differently on selected machine groups Ansible uses Jinja2 as template engine for that. And the scope of functions of the basic modules could be expanded by employing external tools. To drop a word on why it could be useful in certain situations to run own instances of the httpbin request server instead of using the official ones which are provided on the net by Runscope: Like some people would prefer to run a private instance for example in the local network instead of querying the one on the internet. Or for some development reasons a couple or even a large number of identical instances might be needed Ansible is ideal for setting them up automatically. Anyway, the Javascript bindings to the tracking services like Google Analytics in httpbin/templates/trackingscripts.html are patched out in the Debian package. That could be another reason to prefer to set up an own instance on a Debian server.

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RProtoBuf 0.4.9

RProtoBuf provides R bindings for the Google Protocol Buffers ("Protobuf") data encoding and serialization library used and released by Google, and deployed as a language and operating-system agnostic protocol by numerous projects. The RProtoBuf 0.4.9 release is the fourth and final update this weekend following the request by CRAN to not use package= in .Call() when PACKAGE= is really called for. Some of the code in RProtoBuf 0.4.9 had this bug; some other entry points had neither (!!). With the ongoing drive to establish proper registration of entry points, a few more issues were coming up, all of which are now addressed. And we had some other unreleased minor cleanup, so this made for a somewhat longer (compared to the other updates this weekend) NEWS list:

Changes in RProtoBuf version 0.4.9 (2017-03-06)
  • A new file init.c was added with calls to R_registerRoutines() and R_useDynamicSymbols()
  • Symbol registration is enabled in useDynLib
  • Several missing PACKAGE= arguments were added to the corresponding .Call invocations
  • Two (internal) C++ functions were renamed with suffix _cpp to disambiguate them from R functions with the same name
  • All of above were part of #26
  • Some editing corrections were made to the introductory vignette (David Kretch in #25)
  • The 'configure.ac' file was updated, and renamed from the older converntion 'configure.in', along with 'src/Makevars'. (PR #24 fixing #23)

CRANberries also provides a diff to the previous release. The RProtoBuf page has an older package vignette, a 'quick' overview vignette, a unit test summary vignette, and the pre-print for the JSS paper. Questions, comments etc should go to the GitHub issue tracker off the GitHub repo.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

5 March 2017

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppGSL 0.3.2

The RcppGSL package provides an interface from R to the GNU GSL using the Rcpp package. RcppGSL release 0.3.2 is one of several maintenance releases this weekend to fix an issue flagged by CRAN: calls to .Call() sometimes used package= where PACKAGE= was meant. This came up now while the registration mechanism is being reworked. So RcppGSL was updated too, and we took the opportunity to bring several packaging aspects up to the newest standards, including support for the soon-to-be required registration of routines. No new code or features were added. The NEWS file entries follow below:

Changes in version 0.3.2 (2017-03-04)
  • In the fastLm function, .Call now uses the correct PACKAGE= argument
  • Added file init.c with calls to R_registerRoutines() and R_useDynamicSymbols(); also use .registration=TRUE in useDynLib in NAMESPACE
  • The skeleton configuration for created packages was updated.

Courtesy of CRANberries, a summary of changes to the most recent release is available. More information is on the RcppGSL page. Questions, comments etc should go to the issue tickets at the GitHub repo.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppSMC 0.1.5

RcppSMC provides Rcpp-based bindings to R for them Sequential Monte Carlo Template Classes (SMCTC) by Adam Johansen described in his JSS article. RcppSMC release 0.1.5 is one of several maintenance releases this weekend to fix an issue flagged by CRAN: calls to .Call() sometimes used package= where PACKAGE= was meant. This came up now while the registration mechanism is being reworked. Hence RcppSMC was updated, and we took the opportunity to bring several packaging aspects up to the newest standards, including support for the soon-to-be required registration of routines. No new code or features were added. The NEWS file entries follow below:

Changes in RcppSMC version 0.1.5 (2017-03-03)
  • Correct .Call to use PACKAGE= argument
  • DESCRIPTION, NAMESPACE, README.md changes to comply with current R CMD check levels
  • Added file init.c with calls to R_registerRoutines() and R_useDynamicSymbols()
  • Updated .travis.yml file for continuous integration

Courtesy of CRANberries, there is a diffstat report for this release. More information is on the RcppSMC page. Issues and bugreports should go to the GitHub issue tracker.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

Vincent Bernat: Netops with Emacs and Org mode

Org mode is a package for Emacs to keep notes, maintain todo lists, planning projects and authoring documents . It can execute embedded snippets of code and capture the output (through Babel). It s an invaluable tool for documenting your infrastructure and your operations. Here are three (relatively) short videos exhibiting Org mode use in the context of network operations. In all of them, I am using my own junos-mode which features the following perks: Since some Junos devices can be quite slow, commits and remote executions are done asynchronously1 with the help of a Python helper. In the first video, I take some notes about configuring BGP add-path feature (RFC 7911). It demonstrates all the available features of junos-mode. In the second video, I execute a planned operation to enable this feature in production. The document is a modus operandi and contains the configuration to apply and the commands to check if it works as expected. At the end, the document becomes a detailed report of the operation. In the third video, a cookbook has been prepared to execute some changes. I set some variables and execute the cookbook to apply the change and check the result.

  1. This is a bit of a hack since Babel doesn t have native support for that. Also have a look at ob-async which is a language-independent implementation of the same idea.

Shirish Agarwal: To say or not to say

Voltaire For people who are visually differently-abled, the above reads To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize Voltaire wrote this either in late 16th century or early 17th century and those words were as apt in those times, as it is in these turbulent times as well. Update 05/03 According to @bla these words are attributable to a neo-nazi and apparently a child abuser. While I don t know the context in which it was shared, it describes the environment in which we are perfectly. Please see his comment for a link and better understanding. The below topic requires a bit of maturity, so if you are easily offended, feel free not to read further. While this week-end I was supposed to share about the recent Science Day celebrations that we did last week Science Day celebrations at GMRT Would explore it probably next week. This week the attempt is to share thoughts which had been simmering at the back of my mind for more than 2 weeks or more and whose answers are not clear to me. My buttons were pressed when Martin f. Kraft shared about a CoC violation and the steps taken therein. While it is easy to say with 20:20 hind-sight to say that the gentleman acted foolishly, I don t really know the circumstances to pass the judgement so quickly. In reality, while I didn t understand the joke in itself, I have to share some background by way of anecdotes as to why it isn t so easy for me to give a judgement call. a. I don t know the topics chosen by stand-up comedians in other countries, in India, most of the stand-up acts are either about dating or sex or somewhere in-between, which is lovingly given the name Leela (dance of life) in Indian mythology. I have been to several such acts over the years at different events, different occasions and 99.99% of the time I would see them dealing with pedophilia, necrophilia and all sorts of deviants in sexuality and people laughing wildly, but couple of times when the comedian shared the term sex with people, educated, probably more than a few world-travelled middle to higher-middle class people were shocked into silence. I had seen this not in once but 2-3 times in different environments and was left wondering just couple of years back Is sex such a bad word that people get easily shocked ? Then how is it that we have 1.25 billion + people in India. There had to be some people having sex. I don t think that all 1.25 billion people are test-tube babies. b. This actually was what lead to my quandary last year when my sharing of My Experience with Debian which I had carefully prepared for newbies, seeing seasoned debian people, I knew my lame observations wouldn t cut ice with them and hence had to share my actual story which involved a bit of porn. I was in two minds whether or not to say it till my eyes caught a t-shirt on which it was said We make porn or something to that effect. That helped me share my point. c. Which brings me to another point, it seems it is becoming increasingly difficult to talk about anything either before apologizing to everyone and not really knowing who will take offence at what and what the repercussions might be. In local sharings, I always start with a blanket apology that if I say something that offends you, please let me know afterwards so I can work on it. As the term goes You can t please everyone and that is what happens. Somebody sooner or later would take offence at something and re-interpret it in ways which I had not thought of. Charlie Chaplin - King of self-deprecating humor From the little sharings and interactions I have been part of, I find people take offence at the most innocuous things. For instance, one of the easy routes of not offending anyone is to use self-deprecating humour (or so I thought) either of my race, caste, class or even my issues with weight and each of the above would offend somebody. Charlie Chaplin didn t have those problems. If somebody is from my caste, I m portraying the caste in a certain light, a certain slant. If I m talking about weight issues, then anybody who is like me (fat) feels that the world is laughing at them rather than at me or they will be discriminated against. While I find the last point a bit valid, it leaves with me no tools and no humour. I neither have the observational powers or the skills that Kapil Sharma has and have to be me. While I have no clue what to do next, I feel the need to also share why humour is important in any sharing.- a. Break When any speaker uses humour, the idea is to take a break from a serious topic. It helps to break the monotony of the talk especially if the topic is full of jargon talk and new concepts. A small comedic relief brings the attendees attention back to the topic as it tends to wander in a long monotonous talk. b. Bridge Some of the better speakers use one or more humourous anecdote to explain and/or bridge the chasm between two different concepts. Some are able to produce humour on the fly while others like me have to rely on tried and tested methods. There is one another thing as well, humour is seems to be a mixture of social, cultural and political context and its very easy to have it back-fired upon you. For instance, I attempted humour on refugees, probably not the best topic to try humour in the current political climate, and predictably, it didn t go down well. I had to share and explain about Robin Williams slightly dark yet humorous tale in Moscow on the Hudson The film provides comedy and pathos in equal measure. You are left identifying with Vladimir Ivanoff (Robin Williams character) especially in the last scene where he learns of his grand-mother dying and he remembers her and his motherland, Russia and plays a piece on his saxophone as a tribute both to his grand-mother and the motherland. Apparently, in the height of the cold war, if a Russian defected to United States (land of Satan and other such terms used) you couldn t return to Russia. The movie, seen some years back left a deep impact on me. For all the shortcomings and ills that India has, even if I could, would and could I be happy anywhere else ? The answers are not so easy. With most NRI s (Non-Resident Indians) who emigrated for good did it not so much for themselves but for their children. So the children would hopefully have a better upbringing, better facilities, better opportunities than they would have got here. I talked to more than a few NRI s and while most of them give standardized answers, talking awhile and couple of beers or their favourite alcohol later, you come across deeply conflicted human beings whose heart is in India and their job, profession and money interests compel them to be in the country where they are serving. And Indian movies further don t make it easy for the Indian populace when trying to integrate into a new place. Some of the biggest hits of yesteryear s were about having the distinct Indian culture in their new country while the message of most countries is integration. I know of friends who are living in Germany who have to struggle through their German in order to be counted as a citizen, the same I guess is true of other countries as well, not just the language but the customs as well. They also probably struggle with learning more than one language and having an amalgamation of values which somehow they and their children have to make sense of. I was mildly shocked last week to learn that Mishi Choudary had to train people in the U.S. to differentiate between Afghan turban styles of wearing and the Punjabi style of wearing the turban. A simple search on Afghani turban and Punjabi turban reveals that there are a lot of differences between the two cultures. In fact, the way they talk, the way they walk, there are lots that differentiate the two cultures. The second shocking video was of an African-American man racially abusing an Indian-American girl. At first, I didn t believe it till I saw the video on facebook. My point through all that is it seems humour, that clean, simple exercise which brings a smile to you and uplifts the spirit doesn t seem to be as easy as it once was. Comments, suggestions, criticisms all are welcome.
Filed under: Miscellenous Tagged: #Elusive, #Fear, #hind-sight, #Humour, #immigrant, #integration, #Mishi Choudary, #refugee, #Robin Williams, #self-deprecating, #SFLC, #two-minds

4 March 2017

intrigeri: Contribute your skills to Debian in Paris, May 13-14 2017

(There is a French translation of this announcement.) Join us in Paris, on May 13-14 2017, and we will find a way in which you can help Debian with your current set of skills! You might even learn one or two things in passing (but you don't have to). Debian is a free operating system for your computer. An operating system is the set of basic programs and utilities that make your computer run. Debian comes with dozens of thousands of packages, precompiled software bundled up for easy installation on your machine. A number of other operating systems, such as Ubuntu and Tails, are based on Debian. The upcoming version of Debian, called Stretch, will be released later this year. We need you to help us make it awesome :) Whether you're a computer user, a graphics designer, or a bug triager, there are many ways you can contribute to this effort. We also welcome experience in consensus decision-making, anti-harassment teams, and package maintenance. No effort is too small and whatever you bring to this community will be appreciated. Here's what we will be doing: Goals and principles Before diving into the exact content of this event, a few words from the organization team. This is a work in progress, and a statement of intent. Not everything is organized and confirmed yet. We want to bring together a heterogeneous group of people. This goal will guide our handling of sponsorship requests, and will help us make decisions if more people want to attend than we can welcome properly. In other words: if you're part of a group that is currently under-represented in computer communities, we would like you to be able to attend. We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar personal characteristic. Attending this event requires reading and respecting our Code of Conduct, that sets the standards in terms of behaviour for the whole event, including communication (public and private) before, while and after. There will be a team ready to act if you feel you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable by an attendee. We believe that money should not be a blocker for contributing to Debian. We will sponsor travel and find a place to sleep for as many enthusiastic attendees as possible. The space where this event will take place is accessible to wheelchairs. We are trying to organize a translation into (probably French) sign language. Vegan food should be provided for lunch. If you have any specific needs regarding food, please let us know when registering, and we will do our best. What we will be doing There will be a number of stations, i.e. physical space dedicated to people with a given set of skills, hosted by someone who is ready to make this space welcoming and productive. A few stations are already organized, and are described below. If you want to host a station yourself, or would like us to organize another one, please let us know. For example, you may want to assess the state of Debian Stretch for a specific field of interest, be it audio editing, office work, network auditing or whatever you are doing with Debian :) Test the upcoming version of Debian We will test Debian Stretch and gather feedback. We are particularly interested in: Experienced Debian contributors will be ready to relay this feedback to the relevant teams so it is put to good use. Hypra collaborators will be there to bring a focus on universal access technologies. Design and graphics Truth be told, Debian lacks people who are good at design and graphics. There are definitely a good number of low-hanging fruits that can be tackled in a week-end, either in Debian per-se, or in upstream) projects, or in Debian derivatives. This station will be hosted by Juliette Belin. She designed the themes for the last two versions of Debian. Triage Release Critical bugs Bugs flagged as Release Critical are blocking the release of the upcoming version of Debian. To fix them, it helps to make sure the bug report documents the up-to-date status of the bug, and of its resolution. One does not need to be a programmer to do this work! For example, you can try and reproduce bugs in software you use... or in software you will discover. This helps package maintainers better focus their work. This station will be hosted by Solveig. She has experience in bug triaging, in Debian and elsewhere. Cyril Brulebois, a long-time Debian developer, will provide support and advice upon request. Fix Release Critical bugs There will be a Bug Squashing Party. Where? When? How to register? See https://wiki.debian.org/BSP/2017/05/fr/Paris for the exact address and time. Please register by the end of March if you want to attend this event! If you have any questions, please get in touch with us.

3 March 2017

Petter Reinholdtsen: Norwegian Bokm l translation of The Debian Administrator's Handbook complete, proofreading in progress

For almost a year now, we have been working on making a Norwegian Bokm l edition of The Debian Administrator's Handbook. Now, thanks to the tireless effort of Ole-Erik, Ingrid and Andreas, the initial translation is complete, and we are working on the proof reading to ensure consistent language and use of correct computer science terms. The plan is to make the book available on paper, as well as in electronic form. For that to happen, the proof reading must be completed and all the figures need to be translated. If you want to help out, get in touch. A fresh PDF edition in A4 format (the final book will have smaller pages) of the book created every morning is available for proofreading. If you find any errors, please visit Weblate and correct the error. The state of the translation including figures is a useful source for those provide Norwegian bokm l screen shots and figures.

Michal &#268;iha&#345;: Weblate 2.12

Weblate 2.12 has been released today, few days behind schedule. It brings improved screenshots management, better search and replace features or improved import. Many of the new features were already announced in previous post, where you can find more details about them. Full list of changes: If you are upgrading from older version, please follow our upgrading instructions. You can find more information about Weblate on https://weblate.org, the code is hosted on Github. If you are curious how it looks, you can try it out on demo server. You can login there with demo account using demo password or register your own user. Weblate is also being used on https://hosted.weblate.org/ as official translating service for phpMyAdmin, OsmAnd, Aptoide, FreedomBox, Weblate itself and many other projects. Should you be looking for hosting of translations for your project, I'm happy to host them for you or help with setting it up on your infrastructure. Further development of Weblate would not be possible without people providing donations, thanks to everybody who have helped so far! The roadmap for next release is just being prepared, you can influence this by expressing support for individual issues either by comments or by providing bounty for them.

Filed under: Debian English phpMyAdmin SUSE Weblate 0 comments

2 March 2017

Joey Hess: what I would ask my lawyers about the new Github TOS

The Internet saw Github's new TOS yesterday and collectively shrugged. That's weird.. I don't have any lawyers, but the way Github's new TOS is written, I feel I'd need to consult with lawyers to understand how it might affect the license of my software if I hosted it on Github. And the license of my software is important to me, because it is the legal framework within which my software lives or dies. If I didn't care about my software, I'd be able to shrug this off, but since I do it seems very important indeed, and not worth taking risks with. If I were looking over the TOS with my lawyers, I'd ask these questions...
4 License Grant to Us
This seems to be saying that I'm granting an additional license to my software to Github. Is that right or does "license grant" have some other legal meaning? If the Free Software license I've already licensed my software under allows for everything in this "License Grant to Us", would that be sufficient, or would my software still be licenced under two different licences? There are violations of the GPL that can revoke someone's access to software under that license. Suppose that Github took such an action with my software, and their GPL license was revoked. Would they still have a license to my software under this "License Grant to Us" or not? "Us" is actually defined earlier as "GitHub, Inc., as well as our affiliates, directors, subsidiaries, contractors, licensors, officers, agents, and employees". Does this mean that if someone say, does some brief contracting with Github, that they get my software under this license? Would they still have access to it under that license when the contract work was over? What does "affiliates" mean? Might it include other companies? Is it even legal for a TOS to require a license grant? Don't license grants normally involve an intentional action on the licensor's part, like signing a contract or writing a license down? All I did was loaded a webpage in a browser and saw on the page that by loading it, they say I've accepted the TOS. (I then set about removing everything from Github.) Github's old TOS was not structured as a license grant. What reasons might they have for structuring this TOS in such a way? Am I asking too many questions only 4 words into this thing? Or not enough?
Your Content belongs to you, and you are responsible for Content you post even if it does not belong to you. However, we need the legal right to do things like host it, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store and display your Content and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service.
If this is a software license, the wording seems rather vague compared with other software licenses I've read. How much wiggle room is built into that wording? What are the chances that, if we had a dispute and this came before a judge, that Github's laywers would be able to find a creative reading of this that makes "do things like" include whatever they want? Suppose that my software is javascript code or gets compiled to javascript code. Would this let Github serve up the javascript code for their users to run as part of the process of rendering their website?
That means you're giving us the right to do things like reproduce your content (so we can do things like copy it to our database and make backups); display it (so we can do things like show it to you and other users); modify it (so our server can do things like parse it into a search index); distribute it (so we can do things like share it with other users); and perform it (in case your content is something like music or video).
Suppose that Github modified my software, does not distribute the modified version, but converts it to javascipt code and distributes that to their users to run as part of the process of rendering their website. If my software is AGPL licensed, they would be in violation of that license, but doesn't this additional license allow them to modify and distribute my software in such a way?
This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell your Content or otherwise distribute it outside of our Service.
I see that "Service" is defined as "the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub". Does that mean at the time I accept the TOS, or at any point in the future? If Github tomorrow starts providing say, an App Store service, that necessarily involves distribution of software to others, and they put my software in it, would that be allowed by this or not? If that hypothetical Github App Store doesn't sell apps, but licenses access to them for money, would that be allowed under this license that they want to my software?
5 License Grant to Other Users Any Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of your Content in repositories they control).
Let's say that company Foo does something with my software that violates its GPL license and the license is revoked. So they no longer are allowed to copy my software under the GPL, but it's there on Github. Does this "License Grant to Other Users" give them a different license under which they can still copy my software? The word "fork" has a particular meaning on Github, which often includes modification of the software in a repository. Does this mean that other users could modify my software, even if its regular license didn't allow them to modify it or had been revoked? How would this use of a platform-specific term "fork" be interpreted in this license if it was being analized in a courtroom?
If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality. You may grant further rights if you adopt a license.
This paragraph seems entirely innocious. So, what does your keen lawyer mind see in it that I don't? How sure are you about your answers to all this? We're fairly sure we know how well the GPL holds up in court; how well would your interpretation of all this hold up? What questions have I forgotten to ask?
And finally, the last question I'd be asking my lawyers: What's your bill come to? That much? Is using Github worth that much to me?

Jonathan McDowell: Rational thoughts on the GitHub ToS change

I woke this morning to Thorsten claiming the new GitHub Terms of Service could require the removal of Free software projects from it. This was followed by joeyh removing everything from github. I hadn t actually been paying attention, so I went looking for some sort of summary of whether I should be worried and ended up reading the actual ToS instead. TL;DR version: No, I m not worried and I don t think you should be either. First, a disclaimer. I m not a lawyer. I have some legal training, but none of what I m about to say is legal advice. If you re really worried about the changes then you should engage the services of a professional. The gist of the concerns around GitHub s changes are that they potentially circumvent any license you have applied to your code, either converting GPL licensed software to BSD style (and thus permitting redistribution of binary forms without source) or making it illegal to host software under certain Free software licenses on GitHub due to being unable to meet the requirements of those licenses as a result of GitHub s ToS. My reading of the GitHub changes is that they are driven by a desire to ensure that GitHub are legally covered for the things they need to do with your code in order to run their service. There are sadly too many people who upload code there without a license, meaning that technically no one can do anything with it. Don t do this people; make sure that any project you put on GitHub has some sort of license attached to it (don t write your own - it s highly likely one of Apache/BSD/GPL will suit your needs) so people know whether they can make use of it or not. I don t care is not a valid reason not to do this. Section D, relating to user generated content, is the one causing the problems. It s possibly easiest to walk through each subsection in order. D1 says GitHub don t take any responsibility for your content; you make it, you re responsible for it, they re not accepting any blame for harm your content does nor for anything any member of the public might do with content you ve put on GitHub. This seems uncontentious. D2 reaffirms your ownership of any content you create, and requires you to only post 3rd party content to GitHub that you have appropriate rights to. So I can t, for example, upload a copy of Friday by Rebecca Black. Thorsten has some problems with D3, where GitHub reserve the right to remove content that violates their terms or policies. He argues this could cause issues with licenses that require unmodified source code. This seems to be alarmist, and also applies to any random software mirror. The intent of such licenses is in general to ensure that the pristine source code is clearly separate from 3rd party modifications. Removal of content that infringes GitHub s T&Cs is not going to cause an issue. D4 is a license grant to GitHub, and I think forms part of joeyh s problems with the changes. It affirms the content belongs to the user, but grants rights to GitHub to store and display the content, as well as make copies such as necessary to provide the GitHub service. They explicitly state that no right is granted to sell the content at all or to distribute the content outside of providing the GitHub service. This term would seem to be the minimum necessary for GitHub to ensure they are allowed to provide code uploaded to them for download, and provide their web interface. If you ve actually put a Free license on your code then this isn t necessary, but from GitHub s point of view I can understand wanting to make it explicit that they need these rights to be granted. I don t believe it provides a method of subverting the licensing intent of Free software authors. D5 provides more concern to Thorsten. It seems he believes that the ability to fork code on GitHub provides a mechanism to circumvent copyleft licenses. I don t agree. The second paragraph of this subsection limits the license granted to the user to be the ability to reproduce the content on GitHub - it does not grant them additional rights to reproduce outside of GitHub. These rights, to my eye, enable the forking and viewing of content within GitHub but say nothing about my rights to check code out and ignore the author s upstream license. D6 clarifies that if you submit content to a GitHub repo that features a license you are licensing your contribution under these terms, assuming you have no other agreement in place. This looks to be something that benefits projects on GitHub receiving contributions from users there; it s an explicit statement that such contributions are under the project license. D7 confirms the retention of moral rights by the content owner, but states they are waived purely for the purposes of enabling GitHub to provide service, as stated under D4. In particular this right is revocable so in the event they do something you don t like you can instantly remove all of their rights. Thorsten is more worried about the ability to remove attribution and thus breach CC-BY or some BSD licenses, but GitHub s whole model is providing attribution for changesets and tracking such changes over time, so it s hard to understand exactly where the service falls down on ensuring the provenance of content is clear. There are reasons to be wary of GitHub (they ve taken a decentralised revision control system and made a business model around being a centralised implementation of it, and they store additional metadata such as PRs that aren t as easily extracted), but I don t see any indication that the most recent changes to their Terms of Service are something to worry about. The intent is clearly to provide GitHub with the legal basis they need to provide their service, rather than to provide a means for them to subvert the license intent of any Free software uploaded.

Guido G nther: Debian Fun in February 2017

Debian LTS February marked the 22nd month I contributed to Debian LTS under the Freexian umbrella. I had 8 hours allocated which I used by: Other Debian stuff Some other Free Software activities Nothing exciting, just some minor fixes at several places:

1 March 2017

Neil McGovern: GNOME ED update Week 9

As mentioned in my previous post, I ll be posting regularly with an update on what I ve been up to as the GNOME Executive Director, and highlighting some cool stuff around the project! If you find this dull, they re tagged with [update-post] so hopefully, you can filter them out. And dear planet.debian.org folk if this annoys you too much I can turn the feed category to turn this off it s not interesting enough :) However, if you like these or have any suggestions for things you d like to see here, let me know. Conferences One of the areas we ve been working on is the sponsorship brochure for GUADEC and GNOME.Asia. Big thanks to Allan Day and the Engagement team for helping out here and I m pleased to say it s almost finished! In the meantime, if you or your company are interested in sponsoring us, please drop a mail to sponsors@guadec.org! Press A fairly lengthy and wide-ranging interview with myself has been published at cio.com. It covers a bit of my background (although mistakenly says I worked for Collabora Productivity, rather than Collabora Limited!), and looks at a few different areas on where I see GNOME and how it sits within the greater GNU/Linux movement I cover some uncomfortable subjects around desktop Linux . It s well worth a read. Release update The GNOME 3.24 release is happening soon! As such, the release team announced the string freeze. If you want to help out with how much has been translated into your language, then https://wiki.gnome.org/TranslationProject/JoiningTranslation is a good place to start. I d like to give a shout out to the translation teams in particular too. Sometimes people don t realise how much work goes into this, and it s fantastic that we re able to reach so many more users with our software. Google Summer of Code GNOME is now announced as a mentoring organisation for Google Summer of Code! There are some great ideas for Summer (Well, in the Northern hemisphere anyway) projects, so if you want to spend your time coding on Free Software, and get paid for it, why not sign up as a student?

Brett Parker: Ooooooh! Shiny!

Yay! So, it's a year and a bit on from the last post (eeep!), and we get the news of the Psion Gemini - I wants one, that looks nice and shiny and just the right size to not be inconvenient to lug around all the time, and far better for ssh usage than the onscreen keyboard on my phone!

Paul Wise: FLOSS Activities February 2017

Changes

Issues

Review

Administration
  • Debian: do the samhain dance, ask for new local contacts at one site, ask local admins to reset one machine, powercycle 2 dead machines, redirect 1 user to the support channels, redirect 1 user to a service admin, redirect 1 spam reporter to the right mechanisms, investigate mail logs for a missing bug report, ping bugs-search.d.o service admin about moving off glinka and remove data, poke cdimage-search.d.o service admin about moving off glinka, update a cron job on denis.d.o for the rename of letsencrypt.sh to dehydrated, debug planet.d.o issue and remove stray cron job lock file, check if ftp is used on a couple of security.d.o mirrors, discuss storage upgrade for LeaseWeb for snapshot.d.o/deriv.d.n/etc, investigate SSD SMART error and ignore the unknown attribute, ask 9 users to restart their processes, investigate apt-get update failure in nagios, swapoff/swapon a swap file to drain it, restart/disable some failed services, help restore the backup server, debug stretch /dev/log issue,
  • Debian QA: deploy merged PTS/tracker patches,
  • Debian wiki: answer 1 IP-blocked VPN user, pinged 1 user on IRC about their bouncing mail, disabled 4 accounts due to bouncing mail, redirect 1 person to documentation/lists, whitelist 5 email addresses, forward 1 password reset token, killed 1 spammer account, reverted 1 spammer edit,
  • Debian mentors: security upgrades, check which email a user signed up with
  • Openmoko: security upgrades, daemon restarts, reboot

Debian derivatives
  • Turned off the census cron job because it ran out of disk space
  • Update Armbian sources.list
  • Ping siduction folks about updating their sources.list
  • Start a discussion about DebConf17
  • Notify the derivatives based on jessie or older that stretch is frozen
  • Invite Rebellin Linux (again)

Sponsors The libesedb Debian backport was sponsored by my employer. All other work was done on a volunteer basis.

Thorsten Glaser: New GitHub Terms of Service r e q u i r e removing many Open Source works from it

Please use the correct (perma)link to bookmark this article, not the page listing all wlog entries of the last decade. Thank you.</update> Some updates inline and at the bottom. The new Terms of Service of GitHub became effective today, which is quite problematic there was a review phase, but my reviews pointing out the problems were not answered, and, while the language is somewhat changed from the draft, they became effective immediately. Now, the new ToS are not so bad that one immediately must stop using their service for disagreement, but it s important that certain content may no longer legally be pushed to GitHub. I ll try to explain which is affected, and why. I m mostly working my way backwards through section D, as that s where the problems I identified lie, and because this is from easier to harder. Note that using a private repository does not help, as the same terms apply. Anything requiring attribution (e.g. CC-BY, but also BSD, ) Section D.7 requires the person uploading content to waive any and all attribution rights. Ostensibly to allow basic functions like search to work , which I can even believe, but, for a work the uploader did not create completely by themselves, they can t grant this licence. The CC licences are notably bad because they don t permit sublicencing, but even so, anything requiring attribution can, in almost all cases, not written or otherwise, created or uploaded by our Users . This is fact, and the exceptions are few. Anything putting conditions on the right to use, display and perform the work and, worse, reproduce (all Copyleft) Section D.5 requires the uploader to grant all other GitHub users Note that section D.4 is similar, but granting the licence to GitHub (and their successors); while this is worded much more friendly than in the draft, this fact only makes it harder to see if it affects works in a similar way. But that doesn t matter since D.5 is clear enough. (This doesn t mean it s not a problem, just that I don t want to go there and analyse D.4 as D.5 points out the same problems but is easier.) This means that any and all content under copyleft licences is also no longer welcome on GitHub. Anything requiring integrity of the author s source (e.g. LPPL) Some licences are famous for requiring people to keep the original intact while permitting patches to be piled on top; this is actually permissible for Open Source, even though annoying, and the most common LaTeX licence is rather close to that. Section D.3 says any (partial) content can be removed though keeping a PKZIP archive of the original is a likely workaround. Affected licences Anything copyleft (GPL, AGPL, LGPL, CC-*-SA) or requiring attribution (CC-BY-*, but also 4-clause BSD, Apache 2 with NOTICE text file, ) are affected. BSD-style licences without advertising clause (MIT/Expat, MirOS, etc.) are probably not affected if GitHub doesn t go too far and dissociates excerpts from their context and legal info, but then nobody would be able to distribute it, so that d be useless. But what if I just fork something under such a licence? Only continuing to use GitHub constitutes accepting the new terms. This means that repositories from people who last used GitHub before March 2017 are excluded. Even then, the new terms likely only apply to content uploaded in March 2017 or later (note that git commit dates are unreliable, you have to actually check whether the contribution dates March 2017 or later). And then, most people are likely unaware of the new terms. If they upload content they themselves don t have the appropriate rights (waivers to attribution and copyleft/share-alike clauses), it s plain illegal and also makes your upload of them or a derivate thereof no more legal. Granted, people who, in full knowledge of the new ToS, share any User-Generated Content with GitHub on or after 1 March, 2017, and actually have the appropriate rights to do that, can do that; and if you encounter such a repository, you can fork, modify and upload that iff you also waive attribution and copyleft/share-alike rights for your portion of the upload. But especially in the beginning these will be few and far between (even more so taking into account that GitHub is, legally spoken, a mess, and they don t even care about hosting only OSS / Free works). Conclusion (Fazit) I ll be starting to remove any such content of mine, such as the source code mirrors of jupp, which is under the GNU GPLv1, now and will be requesting people who forked such repositories on GitHub to also remove them. This is not something I like to do but something I am required to do in order to comply with the licence granted to me by my upstream. Anything you ve found contributed by me in the meantime is up for review; ping me if I forgot something. (mksh is likely safe, even if I hereby remind you that the attribution requirement of the BSD-style licences still applies outside of GitHub.) (Pet peeve: why can t I adopt a licence with British spelling? They seem to require oversea barbarian spelling.) The others Atlassian Bitbucket has similar terms (even worse actually; I looked at them to see whether I could mirror mksh there, and turns out, I can t if I don t want to lose most of what few rights I retain when publishing under a permissive licence). Gitlab seems to not have such, but requires you to indemnify them YMMV. I think I ll self-host the removed content. And now? I m in contact with someone from GitHub Legal (not explicitly in the official capacity though) and will try to explain the sheer magnitude of the problem and ways to solve this (leaving the technical issues to technical solutions and requiring legal solutions only where strictly necessary), but for now, the ToS are enacted (another point of my criticism of this move) and thus, the aforementioned works must go off GitHub right now. That s not to say they may not come back later once this all has been addressed, if it will be addressed to allow that. The new ToS do have some good; for example, the old ToS said you allow every GitHub user to fork your repositories without ever specifying what that means. It s just that the people over at GitHub need to understand that, both legally and technically , any and all OSS licences grant enough to run a hosting platform already , and separate explicit grants are only needed if a repository contains content not under an OSI/OKFN/Copyfree/FSF/DFSG-free licence. I have been told that these are important issues and been thanked for my feedback; we ll see what comes from this. maybe with a little more effort on the coders side All licences on one of those lists or conformant to the DFSG, OSD or OKD should do . e.g. when displaying search results, add a note this is an excerpt, click HERE to get to the original work in its context, with licence and attribution where HERE is a backlink to the file in the repository It is understood those organisations never un-approve any licence that rightfully conforms to those definitions (also in cases like a grant saying just use any OSS licence which is occasionally used) Update: In the meantime, joeyh has written not one but two insightful articles (although I disagree in some details; the new licence is only to GitHub users (D.5) and GitHub (D.4) and only within their system, so, while uploaders would violate the ToS (they cannot grant the licence) and (probably) the upstream-granted copyleft licence, this would not mean that everyone else wasn t bound by the copyleft licence in, well, enough cases to count (yes it s possible to construct situations in which this hurts the copyleft fraction, but no, they re nowhere near 100%).

Next.

Previous.