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

Re: Updated draft of social contract changes

Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > >   5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> > 
> > 	Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
> > 
> > >      We
> > >      support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base", and
> > >      will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
> > 
> > 	This sentence is misplaced.  It should go in the previous clause
> > 	as it has nothing to do with non-free.
> I don't understand why you say that "Linux Standard Base" has nothing
> to do with non-free.

s/nothing to do with/orthogonal to/; see below for more detail.

> Consider, for example:
> http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=1&categories=General+Info#17
> Binary-only software is one of the characteristics of non-free software.
> Yes, it also has applicability to binary-only distribution of free
> software, but that's not the same as "nothing to do with non-free".
> Do you agree with me?  If not, could you expand on your views?

AIUI, LSB is a standard to ensure binary compatibility across linux
distros.  This sentence would therfore seem to declare our commitment to
our users to be interoperable on the binary level -- an issue orthogonal
to how those binaries are licensed.  To me, that would fall under clause
4 of the SC where we pledge to support our users in all their myriad
ways of using Debian.  I see clause 5 as strictly addressing software
with a non-free license and how we will respond/deal with it -- which
has not much to do with the LSB.

That said, this seems like a fairly radical change to the SC (in the
sense that it adds an additional compatibility requirement to the Debian
system  -- cf. grammatical changes) and much more technical in nature
than the other issues discussed therein.  I think this is more the
domain of debian-policy but I can see why some might want it in the SC,
and this should probably be discussed further before being written into
the SC as such.

Hope this helps!

Reply to: