Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
md@linux.it wrote:
> Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote
> as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have
> tought about this.
This is an old canard.
It *was* an editorial change: we'd already worked out that it *made no
difference*.
"Debian will remain 100% free software". There are only two choices of how to
interpret this. Maybe you still haven't figured that out, perhaps because
you're not a native English speaker, so I'll reiterate.
(Option 1) Every collection of bits is software. This is what the editorial
changes went with.
(Option 2) Some things (like documentation) aren't software. In that case,
since "Debian will remain 100% free software", Debian mustn't contain any
documentation at all period. Is that seriously the position you were
advocating? No, it wasn't. Nobody was advocating that position.
I strongly suggested, at the time, an GR to change the Social Contract to say
something like "The computer programs in Debian will remain 100% free
software," which is what you apparently *wanted* it to say.
None of you people decrying the "editorial changes" had the honesty or
integrity to actually propose such a GR. Damn it, get off your butt and DO
it. Propose such a GR and you'll get the respect you don't currently
deserve. I'd propose it myself if I were a DD, just to get a clear vote on
the actual issue on the record.
Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to
amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in
Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should.
I'd welcome someone else beating me to it.
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/
Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder...
Get me out of this fascist nightmare!
Reply to: