Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> > Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:59:29AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > position". In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
> > but I can't guarantee that that's all.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't see why you would think that. The proposal you cite is very
> simple: it says we'll drop the non-free component, and that's all it says.
It's very simple: GFDL licensed documentation does not satisfy all
requirements of the DFSG.
> > My proposal [has not yet been introduced]:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01551.html
> > I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few changes
> > should be necessary.
>
> That's a bit misleading. Your proposal will limit non-free to only
> pieces of software that pass some of the DFSG, rather than anything
> we're legally allowed to distribute as part of non-free.
How is this misleading?
If there are any significant examples of how this limits us, please tell
me about them.
> > I've tried to capture as many good ideas as I could
> > recognize in this proposal, which hopefully will make it less likely
> > that we will need to update the social contract again for quite some time.
>
> Personally, I think that's harmful: independent issues should be voted
> on separately; and afaics the editorial changes and the substantive
> changes are independent.
What defines independence?
> At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are:
>
> [ ] Drop non-free
> [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software
> < > Keep non-free as is (unproposed)
>
> while there are a whole raft of possible editorial changes.
Even on that axis, there's more involved than that.
> At the moment, it's very easy to lose the substantive changes
> you're proposing amidst the copious editorial changes you're also
> proposing. That's bad -- we don't want to make substantive changes
> by accident.
I'm quite happy to provide any needed documentation on my proposed
changes.
> > It's not clear whether this proposal will be on this ballot or on some
> > other ballot.
>
> Personally, I think Debian would be best served by two ballots: one
> to decide on the substantive issues in the simplest possible form;
> and the other to decide on the issue of how the social contract might
> be edited or rewritten to best codify our goals. I don't think it's at
> all sensible to be trying to rewrite the social contract while there's
> a significant question about what our goals actually are though.
Andrew has introduced a proposal which proposes specific changes to the
social contract and which proposes specific actions.
I've proposed alternative changes to the social contract (also specific,
though different in form), but have not proposed any specific followup
actions. If anything, that seems to make my proposal more "goal oriented"
than what it's amending.
If you want to propose other options which specify what our goals are,
feel free.
> > The social contract's ambiguity about handling of non-free software is
> > what led to Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal.
>
> Eh, I think it's safe to say that Andrew's opinion on what's best for
> Debian and our users is what led to the "drop non-free" proposal.
That's one decision point in a long chain of issues.
--
Raul
Reply to: