Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
On 2004-01-23 13:50:24 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or
> > policy
> > changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
> > more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy
> > changes.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 04:18:09PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Let us be clear and agree on this: your amendment would change
> debian's practices. It is not just a wording change to deliver the
> same result.
How is this clear? What are the changes?
> > To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license
> > which:
> >
> > [a] Doesn't allow free distribution
> > [b] Doesn't let us provide source code
> > [c] Doesn't let us change it
> > [d] Discriminates against some people
> > [e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor
> > [f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license
> > [g] Is specific to Debian
> > [h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it
> >
> > You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to
> > distribute
> > such software.
>
> Please tell me why debian could not distribute software in non-free
> which has a licence that says:
>
> Pathological Anti-DFSG Licence
>
> The release of this software offered to the debian project may be
> copied and distributed in binary form for free or charge by the debian
> project or as part of a CD prepared by a debian developer. Any
> distributor for charge who is not a debian developer must pay a fee to
> the copyright holder.
I don't think you need to go any further -- I think it would be a gross
violation of the spirit of debian to distribute software which forces
payment from non-DD mirror operators.
Anyways, if you're going to stoop to absurdities, I'm already "changing
debian's practices, in the sense that I've got you responding to my
posts, which is something Debian wouldn't be involved in if I hadn't
made those posts." No GR needed.
> >> It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to.
> > I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we
> > distribute
> > such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims
> > about
> > existing pracice to making claims about future practice.
>
> I don't know why you've jumped from claims about existing practice to
> only current instances of existing practice.
Because instances which have never happened do not exist.
> Whether we currently have such software is not the whole issue. You
> claimed that your proposal does not contain policy changes, although
> you no longer claim that.
I see this as new policy which does not conflict with existing policy.
I can see that there is a sense of the concept "policy change" which this
satisfies. However, I was using the more blatent meaning of that phrase.
> >>> And what is this "substantial change"?
> >> Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
> > The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux
> > distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary
> > distributions.
>
> That may be an oversight. If the claim is not clear, we should repair
> it, not remove it as your proposal does.
You're suggesting that the contrib and non-free sections of our archive
exist because of an oversight in the social contract?
--
Raul
Reply to: