Re: Clarifications
Buddha Buck <bmb@CBORD.com> writes:
> > 3. None of the promises originally made will be broken by it.
>
> Then why the need to amend the Social Contract, if the promised made in it
> won't be broken?
Because due to short-sightedness, for one specific promise, the
mechanics of how we will fulfill it were written into the Contract.
Guess which promise that was.
> > 4. Debian was created with the cause of creating a free operating
> > system. So says our Constitution. Distributing non-free software
> > falls outside that definition, and the spirit of our organization.
>
> The Debian Constitution -explicitly- denies setting the goals of the
> Project, methods of
> achieving them, or any policies not related to decision making. Relying on
> Section 1 of the constitution to assert Project goals is a violation of
> Section 1.
Then read the Debian Manifesto.
And amend the constitution to not contradict itself :-)
> > 5. Not distributing non-free software does not mean that non-free
> > software cannot be easily used in Debian.
>
> It all depends on how extensive "not distributing" means.
>
> Without some more teeth than what you are trying to present here, your
> proposal boils down to "host non-free on a physically different machine".
> Can you answer me point-by-point:
>
> A: Currently, bug reports for non-free software exist in the BTS. Will
> this GR require that those bug reports be deleted? Will new bugs for
No. It will be at the discretion of the BTS maintainers.
> non-free software be allowed in the BTS? Will bugs for new non-free
> software be allowed in the BTS? As far as I am aware, the BTS only allows
> bugs for packages it knows about.
All these points will be at the discretion of the BTS maintainers.
> B: Currently, non-free software that is "supported" by Debian is held, by
> Debian policy, to the same packaging standards as free software in Debian.
> Will your proposal change that?
Please cite a specific policy reference, so we can be sure we are both
talking from the same page.
> C: Currently, packages in the "contrib" distribution may depend on packages
> in the "non-free" distribution. Contrib packages are also held to the same
> packaging standards as Debian packages. The elimination of non-free would
> break these packages because of dangling dependencies -- requiring their
> elimination due to our existing policy about broken dependencies. How will
> your GR prevent that, or will the elimination of non-free also cause the
> elimination of contrib?
This Resolution does not call for the elimination of contrib. It does
remove contrib from explicit mention in the Social Contract, but does
not call for its removal from the FTP sites.
The Resolution leaves the disposition of packages in contrib up to the
FTP archive maintainers.
Possible options:
1. Use installers
2. Allow the dependencies to exist anyway
3. Remove contrib packages with dependencies so stated in
debian/control
4. Remove the dependencies from debian/control
5. Others, at the discretion of the FTP maintainers.
> > 7. Item number 1 in the Social Contract is "Debian Will Remain 100%
> > Free Software". This is right. It's what we're about. We're not
> > about non-free.
Yup.
> > 8. This proposal does not break any promises or goals laid out in the
> > Social Contract. It does only alter the mechanics by which they are
> > carried out.
>
> If that is the case, then why does it require a change in those promises
> laid out in the Social Contract? Why does it need to be modified at all?
It does not require a change to the promises.
It requires a change to the mechanics of how one promise is carried
out. Unfortunately, for that particular promise, the mechanics of
carrying it out were specifically written into the Contract. Had this
not been the case, we could have made the change without a Resolution
or an amendment.
> > 10. The Social Contract is not intended to be, nor can it be,
> > immutable.
>
> This is evidently in dispute. Several prominent developers have stated that
> they do -not- want to see the Social Contract changed -- that it is, and
> must be, immutable.
The Social Contract has in it, time-sensitive remarks. For instance,
it assumes that non-free will always be distributed via FTP. There
are various other time-sensitive remarks as well. We may be able to
delay it, but the eventuality is that it will HAVE to be shored up at
some point.
> I don't see -any- constitution authority to change the Social Contract. I
> wouldn't mind seeing an amendment to the constitution granting Developers
> that authority, as long as it meets the concerns in the above paragraph.
I am content to let the Project Secretary decide on the
constitutionality of this Resolution. Fair enough?
> > 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other
> > Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software
> > -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software.
>
> In other words, all you want to do is move non-free to a different machine?
Ones that are not part of the Debian project, yes.
> Why does that require amending the Social Contract?
Because it says that Debian provides those. Again, unfortunate
wording at the time the Contract was created.
Reply to: