On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 04:25:28PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [Please direct followups to debian-vote.]
>
> Now that the vote over the meaning of clause 4.1.5 of the Debian
> Constitution is drawing to a close, the time is ripe to clear the last
> bit of pending business from the discussions of the summer of 2000.
>
> My proposal to amend the Debian Social Contract follows. You can find
> the text of the existing Debian Social Contract at <URL:
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract > or on your Debian system in the
> file /usr/share/doc/debian/social-contract.txt if you have the
> doc-debian package installed.
>
> *****************************************************************
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community {+[PROPOSED DRAFT
> FOR AMENDMENT; NOT OFFICIAL]+}
>
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free [-Software-]
>
> We promise to [-keep the-] {+preserve your right to freely use,
> modify, and distribute+} Debian [-GNU/Linux Distribution entirely
> free software. As there are many definitions of free software, we-]
> {+operating system distributions. We+} include the guidelines we use
> to determine if [-software-] {+a work+} is "free" [-below.-] {+in
> a document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Every work
> contained in our distributions will satisfy those guidelines.+}
> We will support our users who develop and run non-free software
> on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of
> non-free software.
>
> 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
>
> When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
> them as [-free software.-] {+freely in a manner consistent with the
> Debian Free Software Guidelines.+} We will make the best system
> we can, so that free software {+and other works+} will be widely
> distributed and used. We will [-feed back bug-fixes,-] {+communicate
> bug fixes,+} improvements, user requests, etc. to the "upstream"
> authors of software {+and other works+} included in our system.
>
> 3. We [-Won't-] {+Will Not+} Hide Problems
>
> We will keep our entire [-bug-report-] {+bug report+} database open
> for public view at all times. Reports that users file [-on-line-]
> {+online+} will [-immediately-] {+promptly+} become visible to
> [-others.-] {+others without requiring manual approval. Project
> discussions will be held in forums open to public participation
> except where absolutely necessary. We are committed to transparency
> and accountability in our decision-making processes.+}
>
> 4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software
>
> We will be guided by the needs of our users and the [-free-software-]
> {+free software+} community. We will place their interests
> first in our priorities. We will support the needs of our users
> for operation in many different kinds of computing environment.
> We [-won't-] {+will not+} object to commercial software that is
> intended to run on Debian systems, and [-we'll-] {+we will+} allow
> others to create value-added distributions containing both Debian
> and commercial software, without any fee from us. [-To support-]
> {+In furtherance of+} these goals, we will provide an integrated
> system of [-high-quality, 100% free software,-] {+high-quality works
> of software and other materials+} with no legal restrictions that
> would prevent these [-kinds of use.
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for
> this software. The software in these directories is not part of
> the Debian system, although it has been configured for use with
> Debian. We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of
> software packages in these directories and determine if they can
> distribute that software on their CDs. Thus, although non-free
> software isn't a part-] {+uses+} of [-Debian, we support its use,
> and we provide infrastructure (such as-] our [-bug-tracking-]
> {+operating+} system [-and mailing lists) for non-free software
> packages.-] {+distributions.+}
> *****************************************************************
>
> [N.B.: wdiff produced possibly confusing output. If you look carefully,
> you will see that clause 5 has been stricken entirely.]
>
> Some of my amendments are semantic; that is, they change the meaning of
> the Social Contract, whereas others are editorial; that is, they change
> the wording of the Social Contract in an effort to convey the intended
> meaning (as I understand it) in a clearer way.
>
> Rationales for amendments:
>
> 1) I felt it was important and useful to elaborate upon some of the core
> freedoms we mean when talking about "free software" (or free
> documentation, free images, etc.): those are the freedoms to use,
> modify, and/or distribute the work in question.
>
> 2) Debian has been, and is increasingly, more than just a GNU/Linux
> distribution. We produce multiple operating systems, and it does not
> stand to reason that our GNU/Linux distribution will be the only one
> worthy of a stable release forever. I have thus generalized the
> language to "Debian operating system distributions" instead of
> "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution".
>
> 3) The DFSG is, in my opinion, a separate work from the Social Contract,
> and has a different scope. I have tweaked the wording of SC #1 so
> that people don't always expect to find the text of the DFSG "below".
> I do not seek to stop us from distributing the documents together,
> however, and this proposal has no bearing on such a decision.
>
> 4) This proposal expands the language of our committment to freedom
> beyond just "software". This proposal does not call for a renaming
> of the DFSG, however, nor for the creation of another document to
> provide guidelines for "non-software" works.
>
> 5) "feed back bug-fixes" felt like an awkward construction to me. This
> is an editorial, not a semantic, change.
>
> 6) I expanded the contractions "we'll" to "we will" and "won't" to "will
> not"; another editorial change.
>
> 7) The GCIDE prefers "online" to "on-line", and so do I; this is an
> editorial change.
>
> 8) We cannot literally commit to bug reports becoming publicly visible
> "immediately". We can commit to "promptly", however, and explicitly
> spell out what was left implicit in the origianl Social Contract: we
> will not have a staff of gatekeepers deciding which bug reports get
> to be seen by the public, as practically all commercial software
> interests do.
>
> 9) I have expanded the premise of SC #3 to cover grounds other than just
> the BTS and technical problems in our products. Back in 1998, a lot
> of non-technical discussions took place on -private (such as the
> discussion of the Social Contract itself), but Debian has evolved
> away from that, and nowadays traffic on -private is far more
> restricted. I propose amending SC #3 to reflect this evolution, and
> our need for greater transparency in accountability so that our
> Project works better not just for the sake of the Free Software
> community, but for our own developers, who are far more numerous now
> than they were in 1998. Our committment to the principles in my
> proposed clause 3 will help us ensure that we scale to meet the
> demands placed on us by our larger (and still increasing) size.
>
> 10) I propose "free software community" instead of "free-software
> community"; an editorial change. The concept of "free software" has
> gained currency over the past 5 years as the GNU/Linux has increased
> its profile, and I think we can afford to refer to it as such in our
> Social Contract without confusing too many people.
>
> 11) I changed "To support the goals" to "In furtherance of these goals";
> an editorial change that implies (to me, anyway) more forceful and
> directed action.
>
> 12) In both clause 1 and clause 5, I have replaced the phrase "100% free
> software" with other constructions that are, hopefully, less
> ambiguous, especially to those who must translate the Social
> Contract into other languages. (This is not a made-up problem; it
> was brought to the attention of the debian-legal list earlier this
> year.)
>
> 13) Clause 5 has been stricken entirely. *This amendment does NOT
> mandate the removal of the non-free section from anything,
> anywhere.* What it does do is withdraw our commitment to provide a
> "non-free section" via a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) archive
> specifically. This makes it possible for us to decide, in the near
> or distant future, to stop distributing the non-free section without
> violating our own Social Contract.
>
> I am seeking seconds and editorial amendments to this proposed General
> Resolution.
I second it.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part