[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:56:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > I don't really understand how you could be a member of the project
> > in that case: we've never made any particularly strong efforts to
> > rid the Debian system of non-free documentation or other data. If
> > you believed that was in violation of the social contract, I can't
> > really understand your silence.
> 	I was surprised at the RM's lack of support for a free OS, 

Uh, Manoj, go fuck yourself. There is no need to descend to that level
of gratuitous personal insult.

I've devoted a significant chunk of my life at this point to this free
OS, whether in trying to make it continue working, to improve it, and
to make it freer. I don't deserve that comment, and I insist you both
take it back and apologise for it. Take your holier-than-thou fucking
rhetoric and shove it.

> 	We have ,often, failed to follow the social contract in the
>  past, though this was the first wilful violation I recall. 

Unless you're living in a state of perpetual ignorance, that's bullshit:

> > Well, obviously it doesn't: the text of the GPL isn't distributed
> > under DFSG-free terms, for instance. The Debian logo isn't licensed
> > under DFSG-free terms either, for that matter. The doc-debian
> > package doesn't include a license for the Debian Manifesto.
> 	Oh, if you must descend to quibbles and nitpicks 

Is it important for these things to be free or not? They go on Debian
CDs. And all of the problems listed there have been around almost as
long as I've been in the project.

You can point at Bruce -- who hasn't been actively involved in the
project, again for almost as long as I've been around -- and what he
thinks all you like, but I really don't see how you can have failed to
have noticed that we've _never_ had a serious policy of applying the
DFSG to docs.

>  (you know
>  this we3ll, since you were aware of the discussion in legal where all
>  this has been long spelled out): The license texts are indeed special
>  cased, since they determine our right to distrivbute the software in
>  the first place, and in no way hinder the ability to modify and
>  distribute mods to the packages in Debian. 

That's nice. Why do you think it's okay to make special cases like that?
Why is it okay for you to make special cases because it's convenient
for you to violate the social contract, but why does it show "a lack
of support for a free OS" for me to act on my best understanding of the
social contract and not be a fascist about documentation licenses, and,
if we're going to make up special cases out of thin air, why shouldn't
someone come along and say "this social contract thing is nonsense,
let's add some SCO licensed code and start making money" ?

> > Violating the social contract -- doing something it explicitly
> > forbids -- is different to not fully achieving the goals it implies,
> > of course.
> 	Well, in my eyes, you were already doing the former (since I
>  thought that it was obvious that the SC applied to everything on the
>  CD). I realize now that what was obvious to me was not so for
>  everyone else. 

You know, people keep asking for me to say more stuff, but whenever
I do, they just ignore it. Why do you imagine I kept saying that the
Social Contract only applies to "software", ie, "programs", everytime
the issue of documentation came up? Because I like the look of my own
pixels or something?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law
http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: