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!
Joe
Reply to: