Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I see no reason why I should be expected to provide evidence to justify
> not being treated with gratuitous disrespect by the project secretary, but
> in order to avoid misunderstanding I'll offer the following. You can see:
> for a discussion on debian-vote in which this exact issue was discussed
> in a fair degree of depth.
Digging down to your message
>There's not much debate about whether we should require everything in main
>to be DFSG-free -- that would also be foolish, because we'd be unable to
>distribute the GPL, and thus unable to distribute any GPLed software.
Right, though that's a very special case...
>There's also not much debate about whether we should require documentation
>and data in main to be DFSG-free -- there's a fairly good consensus that we
>should require it in the relatively near future.
It is the relatively near future now, but apart from that, did the Social
Contract clarification change your mind about this consensus? It didn't
Frankly, if you'd brought this up specifically, I'm quite sure the amendment
could have been coupled with a specific proposal to not require everything
to be DFSG-free immediately -- even though it is explicitly required by the
Social Contract, and always has been. (Yes, you did convince me that
Debian has been flagrantly ignoring the text of its Social Contract for
years.) After all, when DFSG violations are found, standard practice is to
attempt to fix them by contacting upstream, asking for relicensing, etc.,
before removing packages.
>There might be some debate about whether we should immediately drop all
>non-DFSG-free data and documentation. I certainly think it would be
>a ridiculously foolish thing to do, both from a technical standpoint
>of the best way to support our users, and from the standpoint of
>making it difficult for people to negotiate with the FSF to improve
>the GFDL. TTBOMK, both the delegates in charge of vetting licenses,
>ie ftpmaster, and the DPL agree with this view. I'm not aware of anyone
>making serious alternative suggestions.
Then why interpret the editorial clarifications amendment to demand
immediate removal, even though it explicitly states that it it not intended
as a change in meaning? I think quite a few people were convinced that it
would not be possible to release a Social-Contract-compliant sarge
immediately, and were willing to accept that; but didn't want to delay the
There are none so blind as those who will not see.