Re: "keep non-free" proposal
> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue
> of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs",
> by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his
homework, wrote:
>Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply
>doesn't, well, work.
Debian can explicitly exempt license texts which apply to works in the Debian
distribution, if necessary. I'll even write up the Social Contract change if
you like.
However, IMO the preamble to the GPL *should* be freely modifiable; it is a
nasty defect that it isn't.
>I'm not sure why you so object to non-free documentation that you're
>unwilling to countenance any decision that leaves it in main.
Non-free documentation causes an astounding amount of practical trouble.
But more importantly, Debian is lying. I care about that. It is deeply
objectionable for Debian to claim that it is "100% Free Software" when it
isn't even *trying* to be. Just as it is deeply objectionable for RMS to
claim that GFDL-licensed documents are free in the same way GPL-licensed
documents are. (Which they aren't.)
> I'm not
>sure why you're unwilling to persuasively argue that it should be removed
>immediately on its merits, either.
I've argued this repeately (debian-legal among other places). My arguments
have been persuasive to many people. Perhaps you weren't listening, or you
wouldn't say that?
I feel that the Social Contract should be amended to say what it already says,
but *clearly*. I don't see what's wrong with that.
If you think the Social Contract means something different from the meaning
which is the consensus interpretation of debian-legal, which is also the
meaning intended by Bruce Perens when writing the DFSG, you should most
certainly propose a GR to change it to say that meaning, *clearly*.
Then that issue could get resolved by a developer vote between two competing
GRs. And even if it was resolved that Debian will contain "free programs and
non-free documentation", at least I would spend less of my time arguing over
the meaning of the word "software". And I would know that it was time to
found a replacement for Debian, one which actually intended to be 100% Free
-- I could apply for SPI support for it, too. (Whereas if it was resolved in
the way I consider correct, I could wholeheartedly support Debian in every
way possible.)
>For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure
>why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making.
(a) I'm a user.
(b) I've done more work on QA and release preparation this cycle than most
developers. (I mentioned a while back that the NM process did not look
encouraging, and was told "Well, you can do lots of stuff without being a
developer!" So I decided to see whether that was true. Answer: yes, except
that occasionally certain people discount my views because I'm "not a
developer". Hi, Anthony. Hi, James Troup.)
(c) I am an SPI contributing member.
(d) I am an upstream developer.
(e) I am a prospective developer, although I have not applied to n-m.
(Frankly, mastering GPG and getting keys signed is going to be the most
painful part of the process for me, and that has to be done *before* applying
to n-m.)
--
Incidentally, you seem to think that "drop non-free" should be decided
*before* the clarification of the Social Contract. I think they should be
decided in the other order, because the implications of "dropping non-free"
are much clearer once the Social Contract is clarified -- currently I am
quite sure different people have different ideas about what will be dropped.
Reply to: