Re: PROPOSED: interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3, modifiability, and invariant text
Or, we could point out that it's the Debian Free *Software*
Guidelines, not the Debian free-everything-in-the-world guidelines. I
Isn't that exactly what this is?
Besides, remember the Social Contract: "Debian will remain 100% Free
It can be interpreted as "All software in Debian will be 100% Free" or
"Debian won't be anything other than software ever". No one knows which!
Or so it seems.
So we could either:
- make some interpretive guidelines regarding DFSG 3
- make some interpretive guidelines regarding the social contract and
draw up some Debian Free Other-things-than-software Guidelines
- forget about it and just enjoy life
Oh, and yeah, I think what's important is that we clarify *what* can be
invariant, rather than *how much*, so I can see what you mean when
you're concerned about the 5%/16K limits. I don't mind the limits,
though, but these guidelines won't be written in stone (I hope. I don't
like things that are written in stone, I like things to improve over
time) so if something comes up, Branden (or whoever is "Keeper of the
Something or Other" at the time) will make a new proposal, it'll pass,
and everything will be coo.
See, people are different. Some, like Branden I guess, feel better with
things written out very specifically: what can't and what can be done.
Some, like you, seem to think that too much written down is harmful
rather than helpful. Some, like me, change with every mood swing... but
generally I think that "precedents" are a bad idea. Anyone should be
able to look at the rules and figure out what's okay and not okay,
without looking at a lot of history and "how did we do it in this case"
and "how did we do it in that case". Rules should be "hey, okay, now I
see, this is okay". I.e, clear.
I do think your informal guidelines are clear enough. But Branden's are
cooler, they look more arcane... but then again, yours are more
taoistically elegant. Oh, choices, choices.