On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 10:03:20AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 03:02:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Using the word "software" as the basis for the divide might be too much: > I'm not convinced that leaving important parts of Debian undocumented > over doctrinal disputes over licensing terms is actually in the best > interests of users, but I recognize that's a position that people of > good will can (and have) disagreed upon. If it were up to me, I would > have Debian work towards a system where packages could be tagged to > allow enable common user preferences (we won't be able to make > everyone happy) be enforced by what packages they can see/install. Sure, I agree, and have supported similar proposals in the past. [0] [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/04/msg00074.html > Separating packages into separate sections to support these sorts of > policy preferences is a hack, Not entirely. The pool/main (and dists/*/main) separation makes it easy for mirrors to only get DFSG-free stuff (ie, they can just use rsync, rather than needing to parse Debian-specific policy files). Otherwise, though, yes, definitely agree. > I like this a lot. However, I do have a few nits... > > We, the members of the Debian project, make the following pledge: > > 1. We will build a free operating system > > We will create and provide an integrated system of free software > > that anyone can use. We will make all our work publically available > > as free software. > Given how literalistic some members of our community can be about > interpreting Foundation Documents, the second sentence is a little > worrying. I can easily imagine a Free Software Fanatic using the > second sentance as an argument that we must stop distributing the > non-free section, since non-free is, by definition, not Free Software. The non-free stuff in non-free isn't "our work" though -- it's stuff other people have made that we redistribute. "our work" is things like debbugs, dak, debhelper, *.diff.gz, etc. Maybe some DDs write non-free software that gets packaged, but that can at least be differentiated by "Joe Random <joe@example.com>" versus using a d.o address. > And it could easily be argued that the work that Debian Developers to > package non-free packages, which is after all distributed on the > Debian FTP servers and via Debian Mirrors, would fall under the scope > of "All our work". I think any packaging code, even for non-free stuff, should be DFSG-free. That might require dual-licensing, but that's okay. > I'm not sure what you were trying to state by the second sentence > above; one approach might be to simply strike it from the draft. Or > were you trying to add the constraint that any work authored by DD's > on behalf of the Debian Project should be made available under a free > software license, even if in combination with other software being > packaged, the result is non-free? Pretty much, yeah. > > 2. We will build a superior operating system > > We will collect and distribute the best software available, and > > strive to continually improve it by making use of the best tools > > and techniques available. > I'm worried about the first clause, because of the absolutist word > "best" in "best software available". Again, some literally minded > DD's could view this as meaning that the best is the enemy of the > good, and use this as bludgeon to say that since we have package X, we > should not have packages Y or Z, because, X is the *best*. There's nothing there that says we won't also distribute the worst software available, though. If you're worried about "the best" being exclusionary, though, the same applies to tools/techniques. If bugzilla is the best tool for bug tracking, we must immediately stop using debbugs, eg. Ditto wiki software, list software, etc. > I would certainly be willing to second and support such a proposal, > should you decide that you are willing to make it as a formal proposal > for a GR. So that's one, but at least four more would be needed... Here's a wiki page for people who think this is a reasonable or desirable sort of thing to do: http://wiki.debian.org/SocialContractRevision . I've only added my caveats, not ones that other people have already brought up. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature