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

Re: Debian Social Contract

On 11-06-17 at 08:06am, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:
> > So when we (Emdebian) are certain that we match Debian to a sensible 
> > degree (i.e. by obeying Social Contract, and fair amounts of 
> > Policy), we should a) ask Debian for permission formally for the use 
> > of their name, and/or b) ask Debian to "make room for us" as a 
> > Debian-internal project.
> >
> > I write "make room for us", as I believe it requires changes to 
> > Debian Policy.
> >
> > Personally I find b) most ideal, but since I would expect that to 
> > take time and the process potentially stir big debates, I guess it 
> > still makes sense to do a) as an intermediary step.
> As a shiny newbie to the Emdebian world, I am curious to learn why 
> there would be difficulties "making room for us".  Feel free to reply 
> off list or to point me at the long debate where this was discussed 
> previously.

Excellent question.  I see no reason to move elsewhere to talk about 
that. :-)

Debian is (mainly) defined by two papers: Debian Social Contract and 
Debian Policy.

The Social Contract describes political viewpoints all members of Debian 
share, whereas the Policy describes technical rules of (mostly) 

Emdebian assumably share political viewpoints with Debian, but the very 
reason for the existence of Emdebian is that Debian technically is 
suboptimal (or outright unusable) for embedded devices.

So Emdebian have invented "hacks" to Debian to better serve embedded 
devices.  These hacks violate Debian Policy.

...or so I assume.  Please correct me, those of you actually know what 
they are talking about in this team :-)

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: