Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
> The language of that GR might run something like: In the past, we
> have had some disagreements between ourselves about what it is we're
> trying to do and what should go in a free distribution. We intend to
> fix those issues, going forwards, however to release the version of
> the distribution which we were about to release, it's going to have to
> include some components which might have been acceptable under our old
> social contract but which are definitely not acceptable under the new.
> We resolve to distribute the "Sarge Distribution" with packages licensed
> as they are currently licensed, even though these license conflict
> with the updated social contract. We'll also be providing in "Sarge"
> a document listing at least one such conflict for each of these packages.
FWIW (as someone who voted 1), I agree with this interpretation of the
vote, as well as similar comments posted in this thread.
I considered it a commitment to refocus our efforts into making a more
free system. I don't think that it has to be an immediate refocus, or
subordinate to the focus on this release.
Now, I'm pretty new to Debian, but in trying to decide how to vote, I
browsed through the thread using the web archives (didn't find
anything too interesting, though it's hard to separate the wheat from
the chaff), and read the text of the proposal side-by-side with the
current text. I was in a bit of a hurry (as I was heading out of the
country), and a bit new at this, but I thought I was doing my best
there.
If it does indeed "force" us to delay the release, then I was mistaken
in my understanding of its short-term impact. I surely would have
voted for an option "change the contract, but delay implementation
until after the next release", since that would have illuminated the
issue. If I were aware of Anthony's objections, I would have voted 2.
If it takes another GR or an action of the technical committee to
clarify the intent of the voters so be it. I think we should move
ahead with a release.
peace,
isaac
Reply to: