Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes
than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make
policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the
rationale for your most recent amendment. To remind you:
The rationale for this proposal is: clean up the social contract,
make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it. This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.
Back to this thread:
Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes:
1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> do.
You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking
you a
question, which you did not answer.
You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is
not testable.
I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my
claim
false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief.
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works,
so I am unlikely to do that.
It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to.
For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been
the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to
do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into
non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in
debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't
find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable.
Do you?
2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system;
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> do.
I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and
introducing more
tension within the social contract.
And what is this "substantial change"?
Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
5. transition plan for non-free packages.
A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> do.
I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy.
That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal.
This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Reply to: