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

Re: Documentation and Sarge's Release Critical Policy

On Wed, 2003-08-27 at 03:08, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Quoting Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>:
> > > Software in Debian is 100% free. It doesn't prevent Debian to
> > > distribute something else than software.
> > 
> > The social contract says Debian will remain 100% free software. Not that
> > Debian's software will remain 100% free. Bruce Perens has already
> > stepped up to clarify that this is in fact the intent of the DFSG - that
> > it applies to *everything* in Debian.
> "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free software"
> This is from Clause 1 of the Social Contract. It is ambiguous.

The one that precedes it, "Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software", is
not. Which is the same sentence I used in writing my mail.

I would also say that the sentence you chose is semantically the same,
and that if it meant the other thing, it would say "We promise to keep
the software in the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free". But
the first sentence in SC#1 is so unambiguous it doesn't matter.
> > In situations where you are dealing with someone else's source, the GPL
> > restricts you only insofar as it makes you give everyone else the same
> > rights you had. The GFDL does not do this, because you can add invariant
> > sections, and take away others' rights.
> This is why I'd prefer a case per study. Some invariants would be
> acceptable (like Free Software advocacy), others not.

(First of all, this still needs a GR. Everything I say after this
assumes that someone has proposed and managed to pass (Hah!) a social
contract amendment that says we can discuss invariant sections and deem
them acceptable.)

Yeesh. Okay. So let's say I want to include something invariant that's
anti-capitalist. A lot of people will hate that, and say I should take
it out. What do we do, remove any document that one person has an
objection to? That 10 people do? This would still keep the GNU manuals
out of main.

Do we vote on every possible invariant section? That would take
literally decades, I think.

This is the worst idea you've had yet.
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: