Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>> >> 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?
I said that it don't surprise me when people don't make this
distinction not that I'm surprised each time people do.
>> 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" ?
The status of non-free as part of Debian does not change from being
not a part of Debian (right now) to being part of Debian by removing
it from the Social Contract. That would be an absurd interpratation of
the proposal.
So this is a bit of a strawman and has nothing to do with the
consistency of my opinion. The Social Contract has always had this
twist and I don't see any *new* problems in this respect with Brandens
proposal.
Quite contrary I see the present contract to say: We will remain 100%
free [Software, but it doesn't matter here] and we promise to support
non-free software. With Brandens proposal we could say: We will remain
100% free and when our goals is served by doing so we will provide
infrastructure for integrating non-free with Debian.
By taking the non-free part out of the Social Contract is turns from
being a promise to the community to being 'something we can do if it
in other ways server our goals'.
Do you believe that distributing non-free is a goal in itself?
Can distribution serve as a goal to make the best free operating
system guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
community?
I believe it can.
> 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.
I'm not claiming absolut truth anymore than you do.
I'm not not saying that the above has some kind of a priori truth not
any more than I would agree that the opposite opinion has some kind of
a priori truths.
> 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?
I have never agreed to the Social Contract being a perfect document
and I have never agreed to the Social Contract being a never changing
document. I've even voted for having the constitution clearly define
how to change it.
I'm fine with having the fifth clause in the contract but I thing it
would be better if it weren't there.
--
Peter Makholm | According to the hacker ethic, the meaning of life
peter@makholm.net | is not Friday, but it is not Sunday either
http://hacking.dk | -- Peeka Himanen
Reply to: