Re: "keep non-free" proposal
> > How does that work? Seems to me that you can achieve A associates
> > with B, or A does not associate with B, but neither are compromise.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 01:42:42PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> You seem to be conflating "distributes" with "will remain" into a
> single concept: "associates." I'm not doing this.
I think you're assuming that "Debian" is a noun, not an adjective: Your
whole argument is based on the idea that the issue is what's "inside"
that noun and what's "outside" that noun. This shows up here, where
you're characterizing my statements about developers as statements
about software.
My "A" was "Debian Developers who do not want ANY Developers distributing
non-free software in ANY Debian context", and my "B" was "Debian
Developers who want to support some non-free software by distributing
some non-free software in the context of Debian."
I don't see any conflation of "distributes" with "associates" -- debian
developers associate with each other (by being members of debian).
It's software that gets distributed, not developers.
Nor do I see any conflation of "will remain" with anything in my "A"
and "B".
> > The problem with the current subtitle is that it appears to extend
> > to packages which it shouldn't cover.
> >
> > But the current subtitle was not intended as a definition of Debian as
> > a whole, only the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". You can see this in
> > numerous places in the social contract.
>
> I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to
> that which AJ suggested.
If it were accompanied by an official definition of "The Debian
Distribution", I'd be happy with AJ's proposal. Without that definition
I don't think it's adequate.
Also, personally, I think "Debian System" or "Debian Systems" would be a
better term to define (alluding to operating systems -- and emphasizing
that the software is something that is supposed to work together, not
just something we distribute), but that's a relatively minor nit.
> > > The subtitles are the bits that get quoted all over the place --
> > > like it or not. If we have the ability to make a firm and largely
> > > unambiguous statement and then elaborate and explain it in the
> > > body, we should.
> >
> > Which begs the questions: how large does the unambiguousness need to
> > be, how much precision (verbosity) can we tolerate, and what flavors of
> > ambiguity can we live with?
>
> We'll have to settle for as good as we can do. My critique was that I
> thought the proposed text was not there yet. :)
Yeah, you got that right.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: