Re: "keep non-free" proposal
> > If we look at what Debian actually does, and/or the rest of the social
> > contract, [A] makes sense, but [B] contradicts both the rest of the
> > social contract and the current structure of Debian.
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 02:18:34AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> It's only contradictory when you assume that Debian distributing
> software implies that the software distributed is part of Debian in one
> way or another!
Ouch, I knew there was a reason for addressing section 5, but when reading
it over, I missed that phrase. [Sorry, I've been busy with some real
life stuff.]
Here's the mini-rationale for that aspect of part 5:
The Social Contract is titled "Debian GNU/Linux Social Contract" and
most places in the social contract use either that phrase or the phrase
"Debian system". Section 1 and 5 should also use the phrase "Debian
system" or "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" to be consistent.
Remember, though, that the downside of "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution"
is that it's overly specific, now that we are distributing multiple OSes.
> If non-free is *not* part of Debian (as the social contract currently
> implies) but is distributed from our FTP servers (as the social
> contract currently commits us to doing) we must assume that Debian
> distributes non-free software but that this act distribution does not
> imply that is part of Debian.
It's probably not a good idea to talk about the distribution of non-free,
since being non-free might mean that the software can't be distributed
in the same sense that we distribute other software.
Likewise, the Debian OSes being built of software which is entirely
free means that the non-free software is optional -- a supplement --
rather than being anything required to install or run those OSes.
> I view this as an important compromise the social contract struck
> between those folks who did not want to (or would not!) work on a
> project that was not an explicitly a Free Software project and those
> who did wanted to have the project distribute and support non-free
> software.
How do you compromise between A and B when the the distinguishing feature
is that A wants to have nothing to do with B?
> > 1. Debian Shall Continue Distributing Software That's 100% Free
>
> You're changing a sentence about what Debian is made of to one that's
> about what Debian distributes. IMHO, what Debian defines itself as is
> more important than what bits they move around.
False. What Debian is made of is defined in the preamble:
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made
common cause to create a free operating system.
I'm not changing this at all.
> Moreover, the way you've worded this makes me think that as long as
> Debian has a single GPL'ed shell script in a sea of non-free software,
> we're doing our job.
That is an ambiguous interpretation of the subtitle if you ignore the
rest of the social contract. The real mystery is why people want to get
all the meaning from the subtitles and ignore the rest of the contract.
> I guess that means I think it needs work.
Maybe Hamish or Anthony will propose something, and save me the effort.
--
Raul
Reply to: