Re: [Proposal] Updating the Social Contract
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 06:47:47PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 09:15:01PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
> > > rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
> > >
Our existing support for non-free may not continue to exist in its
current form (contrib and non-free FTP archives), for example, for ever.
Stating that we have no problem with people running non-free software
on the underlying basis of a Debian system is more important. Being
inclusionary is more important than confining ourselves to the
structures we have inherited and committing to their indefinite support.
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:29:47PM +0000, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> > Andrew S. wants to remove clause 5 and to state that Debian will not
> > release another stable release with the non-free FTP archive, as I
> > understand it. He also has suggestions for editing the DFSG. OK.
> >
> > I'm looking for a via media here.
>
> "via media" means middle way, right? Middle between Andrew S and what?
On the one potential extreme, you have "drop non-free now, drop all
infrastructure to do with non-free": on the other "keep GFDL in main,
loosen DFSG restrictions" - in the middle, you have thousands of
different opinions :) I'd like to keep the concept of non-free
partly as an interim necessity, partly as a bargaining chip - but
not for Debian to be known for non-free. That's one of the reasons
I suggested potentially renaming non-free to non-DFSG-free (maybe in
one of the other threads) -- to _emphasise_ the DFSG and freeness of
Debian and that Debian main is Debian properly so called.
> More important: why? Maybe you've already answered...?
>
> I like that sentiment, too.
>
> > <RATIONALE FOR SUGGESTED CUT>
> > By deleting the stuff in the middle and keeping the remainder:
> >
> > There is an emphasis that we (Debian Project) will allow people to
> > continue to use non-free software if they wish. [We won't deliberately
> > manoeuevre the Debian packaging system to exclude all non-DFSG free /
> > handicap the computer / delete their non-free packages with a sneaky
> > shell script ... :) ]
>
No: you can permit/allow them to use non-free by, for example, providing
compatibility libraries and not deliberately excluding non-free
which may be distinct from explicitly enabling/helping them to run
non-free.
>
> > There is an emphasis that Debian will be interoperable with the LSB.
> > Big for commercial purposes: potentially less important for a sole user
> > but, on the other hand, we're playing as part of a wider community.
>
> That's something I added. And exactly because of it's significance for
> commercial (non-free) software. I've got at least one guy claiming that
> that's really not a non-free issue at all.
>
Not necessarily vital.
> > There is an emphasis that we carry on working to reduce the numbers of
> > non-DFSG packages and the amount of non-DFSG-free software.
>
The advocacy bit - beginning "[W]e will ..."
> There is? I'm not sure what you're referring to, here.
>
> > The drug dependency metaphors and the statement that non-free software
> > isn't needed by most people don't add much and may detract from the
> > overall effect of clarity. They also add significant length.
>
> I think you dubbed in the bit about drugs. There's many kinds of
> dependencies.
Potentially: but it sounded like a drug dependency programme weaning
people off non-free :) Potentially laudable, but not here in this
context in this document - it could go better elsewhere, perhaps.
>
> Also, if I take out the text you indicated to clip I don't mention the
> non-free distribution at all -- which pretty much means it has no reason
> to exist. That's what I'm looking for a justification on.
>
See above.
HTH,
Andy
Reply to: