Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> On 2004-01-22 18:57:15 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I
> > should
> > do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
> > your statement.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 10:42:05AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes
> than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make
> policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the
> rationale for your most recent amendment.
Mine is more a rewrite of policy than either editorial changes or policy
changes. In other words, in some senses of the words my proposal is
more drastic than editorial changes and less drastic than policy changes.
Another way of looking at this issue is that editorial changes to policy
are policy changes, and policy changes which do not entirely replace
policy are editorial changes.
It's not deceitful to represent something for what it is.
However, if you are arguing that I should not change capitalization of
section titles and should leave sections 2, 3, and 4 alone, I should
probably point out that Anthony Towns has done a fair job of convincing
me that those changes are irrelevant to the current ballot and that I
should drop them for that reasons.
> >>>> Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes:
> >>>> 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG;
> >>> > A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> >>> > do.
> >> You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking
> >> you a question, which you did not answer.
> > You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is
> > not testable.
> >
> > I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my
> > claim false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief.
> Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not
> just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it
> seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any
> DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works,
> so I am unlikely to do that.
To violate every section of the DFSG, you'd have to find a license
which:
[a] Doesn't allow free distribution
[b] Doesn't let us provide source code
[c] Doesn't let us change it
[d] Discriminates against some people
[e] Discriminates against some fields of endeavor
[f] Requires people receiving it to execute an additional license
[g] Is specific to Debian
[h] Contaminates other software which is distributed with it
You have yet to convince me that we would ever have a reason to distribute
such software.
Are you claiming "Raul has pointed out that this is a stupid idea"
is sufficient reason for us to distribute such software?
> It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to.
I've asked you to prove that something does happen -- that we distribute
such software. I don't know why you've jumped from making claims about
existing pracice to making claims about future practice.
> For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been
> the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to
> do.
I'm the one who claims that we don't distribute such software. You're the
one asking ME to prove something that never happens.
You're the one who claims that our existing practice is to distribute
such software. All you have to do is provide an example of that practice.
> Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into
> non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in
> debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't
> find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable.
> Do you?
Now you're confusing existing practice with existing policy.
I do not claim that I'm documenting existing policy.
> >>>> 2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system;
> >>> A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> >>> do.
> >> I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and
> >> introducing more tension within the social contract.
> > And what is this "substantial change"?
> Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
The social contract only makes the promise about the Debian GNU/Linux
distribution. It doesn't make that promise about auxillary distributions.
I intend to preserve this distinction. I do understand that my current
proposal still needs a bit of work to properly express that distinction.
I also intend to preserve the other aspects of both what the social
contract says and how we've been acting on it.
> >>>> 5. transition plan for non-free packages.
> >>> A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we
> >>> do.
> >> I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy.
> > That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal.
> This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale.
Ok. My next proposal will address this.
--
Raul
Reply to: