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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

Colin Watson wrote:

> Before this GR, the social contract didn't explicitly forbid its
> distribution as part of Debian:
Yes, it did.  "Debian will remain 100% Free Software".  This means that
everything in Debian must be software -- and that all of that must be free.
It then proceeds to define "free software" using the DFSG.

Similar to "This evil club will remain 100% White Men", which means everyone
in the club must be a man -- and that all of them must be white.  There
really is no valid interpretation which allows black women in.

> some people interpreted it to do so,
Everyone who'd actually looked into it.

> while others did not.
People who need courses in reading comprehension, I guess?

> Accordingly, it was possible to consider such
> material non-critical.
By reading incompetently, or perhaps by deliberately misreading.

> The GR "clarified" the SC to pick the more
> restrictive interpretation explicitly,
There is no less restrictive interpretation which is a valid reading.
If you want a less restrictive interpretation, amend the SC to *say that*.

> thereby removing any discretion
> that was available under the other interpretation.
Oh, you can still come up with looser interpretations of the Social
Contract.  Feel free.  How about this one, which I'll give you for free:

"if it's a 'work' it needs to be 'free' according to the DFSG, but many
lines in the DFSG only refer to 'software' or 'programs', so those lines
don't apply to anything else; accordingly the only relevant parts for
non-programs are 1, 3 (first clause), 5, and 10."

While I disagree with that interpretation, it's a lot more justifiable
textually than the one AJ was using before.  In fact, it's *more*
justifiable now than it was before the amendment.

That would allow pretty much any distributable documentation into Debian.

(I assume that the claims of change are based on the actual text of the
Social Contract.  If the claim was simply that the amendment represents the
definite view of the majority as to what the social contract "should be",
well, that wouldn't really change if it was undone, now, would it?)

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to: