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


Branden Robinson wrote, in
>E) I say I'm willing to seriously consider breaking up my proposal if
>   the Project Secretary can help me identify how many axes of
>   orthogonality he perceives in my original RFD.

These are the axes I see.
(1) Removal of clause 5, so that non-free is not guaranteed in the social contract (might have several variant options, such as "and remove non-free" or "and keep non-free for now") (Original motivation 13). (2) Clarification that the DFSG applies to all items in 'main' (with the possible technical exception of licenses which apply to items in 'main') and corresponding clarifications to the usage of "software" vs. "programs", "works", and related words. (Original motivations 4,12.) (3) Replacement of "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" with a better term ("Debian system distributions" is my preferred term). (Original motivation 2.)
(4) Elaboration of what we mean by "free". (Original motivation 1.)
(5) Clarification and elaboration of the bug report section (original motivations 8 and 9). (6) Really truly editorial changes, such as the original motivations # 3,5,6,7,10,11 (I dislike 11, personally - "In furtherance" will be a hard-to-translate construction).

I believe that 6 will not be controversial and should be lumped in with some other axis, whichever goes to the polls first. :-)

5 apparently is not controversial.

2, 3, and 4 are interrelated in various ways, so should probably be submitted as one resolution. This will probably be *mostly* uncontroversial (debian-legal consensus is that this is *not* a change in meaning), but you can expect a few annoying cranks to object to it.

1 is obviously controversial, although I'm a bit surprised, I admit. Dropping clause 5 is the part I simply don't care about. :-)

I suppose I would just break off #1 for "later", submit the rest as a package, and wait for objections before trying to break it up further. *shrug*.

Reply to: