On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:36:41AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than > > pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more > > important than stuff that doesn't: > No, I'm saying that it can be viewed as different things. This has > nothing to do with the one thing being more important than the other. Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not in it. The social contract is enshrined as a "foundational document" of the project. It requires the same level of consensus as changing the constitution. You understand this, right? What other conclusion do you expect when you say that you believe the social contract should describe ideology and "pragmatic" stuff should be removed? > >> It's a distinction > >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me. > > Mmm. You're very special. > No, I'm not. Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't? Surely that makes you special? > It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly > sane to say: > 1. This is what I believe. "That Debian should be 100% free" ? > 2. This is how I make them true in the most optimal way. "By including non-free stuff in Debian" ? > Pragmatism might be fully absent from the first but essential in the > second. Don't you at least see a problem with trying to satisfy your beliefs by doing the opposite of them? > > Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value > > for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone. > So what you're saying is that if something have any moral value for > any Debian Developer then it should be part of the social contract > (Ok, restricted to thing relevant for developing an operating system)? No, I'm saying that declaring our support of non-free to be "pragmatic" and thus somehow inappropriate for the social contract depends on your prejudices, it's not an absolute truth that can stand on its own. > No, the social contract is the common ground we're all agreing to and > not just random collection of what some of the developers believe in > and find moral value in. Mmm. Given that we have all already agreed to it, and that it's the only precedent for the Debian social contract, people wouldn't be saying that things already in it just aren't appropriate in that sort of document though, wouldn't you? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpdS2jmnVjAU.pgp
Description: PGP signature