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

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 Software".

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.


Reply to: