On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:22:15PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> 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.
That's nice. Why do you think that means it would get dropped from main,
merely because the non-free section will disappear?
> > > 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?
The decision you make on one doesn't affect the decision you make on
the other. Removing non-free and change the social contract to reflect
that fact aren't independent -- the decision you make on either affects
the other. Removing non-free and clarifying "some of our users" to "some,
not all, of our users" aren't related.
> > 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.
Really? I haven't seen any of it. Would you care to expound?
> > 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.
Providing *more* text makes it *easier* to lost the important details.
If you're really making more substantive changes than the one above, this
has already happened.
> 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.
A lot of your changes are trying to clarify the description of our goals.
Andrew's proposal is to *change* our goals.
Those are different issues.
Whether or not we want to clarify or clean up the social contract is an issue
that's entirely separate to whether or not we want to drop non-free.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature