Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On 11 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant outgrape:
>>> Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 9 Feb 2006, Jérôme Marant spake thusly:
>>>>>>> The only people it made happy are extremists.
>>>> Oh, so I am extremist now. By believing that all bits
>>>> modifiable by the computer are software? And the overwhelming
>>> Yes, I think it is an extreme interpretation of the SC.
>> People espousing what you consider en extreme interpretation of a
>> documents are now extremists? I shall refrain, from the point of
> Extermists in the scope of interpretation of the SC, yes.
Since you label me an extremist (which is insulting, so I am
not sure why I am still engaging in a discussion), and since you
probably have a closed mind on this issue (calling the people you are
having a conversation with extremists is a strong indicator of hide
bound closed mindedness), this is likely a pointless exercise.
>>> Would you please tell me how necessary it is to modify RMS essays,
>>> the GNU Manifesto, and so on, and how removing them from Emacs
>>> will make Debian more free? I'm afraid it sounds ideological.
>> Could you tell me why it is necesary tomodify wonderful pieces of
>> software like vim or emacs, and how it makes Debian more free? I
>> mean, those authors have poured their heart and soul into those
> Because if we hadn't the right to modify them, we wouldn't be able
> to fix them. Because if their author died, we wouldn't be able to
> get any more support for them, nor to make them live and hence we'd
> have to switch to another support tool.
> There are technical arguments in favour of Free Software.
Bug fixing is not the sole reason to celebrate freedom of
software, derived works tailotred to ones needs is an important
pillar of the reasons one should champion the cause of freedom.
>> If you do not see how starting with a GNU Manifesto and
>> modifying it to be Manoj's manifesto is a freedom that can be
>> coveted, I am afraid I do not see how you understand the concept of
>> freedom of software actually works.
> So, in real life, you shall be free to get a copy of some random
> novel, change few life, and sell it as Manoj novel?
If the novel is free, and deserves to be in main, sure. Most
novels, like most software, do not meet our stanbdards. Do you have a
point in here somewhere?
> I know we're not GNU, but by reading the four freedom, it is quite
> clear that GNU considers Software as computer programs. YMMV.
>> People have created essays by modifying other peoples works, with
>> proper attribution (this is based on, but not the same as views and
>> essays by foo, and represents my views, not theirs, but the ideas
>> are not mine originally, I stand on the shoulders of giants .....)
> People created essays by getting _inspired_ by others' work. So does
> the research world work.
And others have taken the work, modified it a bit, and
presented it. Disney and the fairy tales, for example. The lord of
the rings movies. West side story variations (which in turn is Romeo
and Juliet, which in turn was based on an intalian song).
Again, is there a point in this anywhere?
>> Or some authors bundle non-free works with free works, and yes,,
>> that is a burden. But promoting software freedom is not without
>> costs: every freedom comes at a price (perhaps not quite the blood
>> of patriots, but still).
> Then, shall I say I do promote Free Programs instead of Free
That seems to be the case. Ubfortunately for you, Debian asks
for freedoms of everything in main. Your views and Debians seem to
>>>>>>> I'd propose to revert this and clearly define what software
>>>>>>> is. Also, I can't see a definition of what Software is. I've
>>>>>>> not seen any definition going beyond that (of wordnet)
>>>> ,----[ From Wikipedia: ]
>>>> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_hardware
>>>> | was first proposed by Alan Turing in an essay.
>>> There is no such definition at debian.org either. Where on our
>>> web site can we find what software means for Debian? Maybe I
>>> missed it?
>> Is there a definition of the word definition? Is there a definition
>> of the word "is", to you Clinton watchers out there? Do we define
>> every wrod on the web site?
> This is ridiculous.
If we are to descend to shoolyard tactics, you is your assertion.
>> You can not draw conclusions one way or the other about most
>> GR's then. Are you saying that the Quorum should be increased to
> You can't draw _any_ conclusion.
_You_ may not be able to, but others may not be so
hanbdicapped. Please speak for yourself when you talk about this.
>> 30%? 40%? 50%?
>> If so, you know where to start the GR. If not, what do you
>> think the concept of Quorum means? Why is a vote that meets quorum
> When the quorum is reached, the vote is valid. I'm not saying
> anything more.
So the Editorial Changes vote was valid. Good deal.
>> requirement not enough to draw conclusions by?
> When the quorum is too low, it looks like polls ;-)
>>>> If people think the quorum requirements are too low, I would
>>>> not be averse to raising K and Q to be higher than their current
>>> I indeed think the quorum is too low.
>> Why are you neglecting your duties as a Debian Developer to
>> correct this lacuna in how the project operates? Are we not
>> supposed to be working for the improvement of Debian?
> Yes we are.
And? Where is the GR asking for the quorum to be raised?
>>>>>>> and considering that many pros are convinced they have been
>>>> I see. If you are saying that they voted on the GR, but felt
>>>> deceived by title "editorial changes", then, in essence, they
>>>> voted on a GR that changes a foundation document, where the full
>>>> text of the GR was available on Debian's web site, and had been
>>>> sent to their mail box no less than 4 times, and they call not
>>>> reading the actual text "being deceived"? I would label it as
>>>> gross dereliction of duty as a Debian developer exercising their
>>>> franchise, Sloth, incompetence, or illiteracy.
>>> No, people suddenly decided that software was "any bits in Debian"
>>> and it opened a door to their interpretation. This is a
>> I did not suddenly decide that. The term "software" was first used
>> in this sense by John W. Tukey in 1957. In computer science and
>> software engineering, computer software is all information
>> processed by computer systems, programs and data. The concept of
>> software was first proposed by Alan Turing in an essay.
>> If you think that a concept valid since the 1940's is "suddenly"
>> foisted on a project that did not exist until the 1990's, you have
>> a strange concept of sudden.
> So, GNU people are stupid and entirely wrong as well? Some come from
> the famous MIT and were not aware of this?
You seem to think trhat going to MIT confers upon one some
kind of mark of wisdom and infallibility. I do not suffer from such
an inferirity complex (I did attend Kharagpur, which may have
something to do with it getting into MIT is trivial by
comparison). However, this is silly beyond words.
"You'll pay to know what you really think." J.R. "Bob" Dobbs
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C