Re: "Debian" in the social contract
Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html):
>Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which
>attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social
>contract (as represented by common sense reading of what it has to say,
>and as represented by existing practice).
Yep -- I think "software" is the most infamous case. In that case we (meaning
debian-legal readers) looked up the original definition of "software"; we
checked what Bruce Perens meant when he wrote the DFSG; we discussed whether
it was possible to make a meaningful, clear distinction between "programs",
"data", and/or "documentation" (conclusion: no); we argued about whether all
of the freedoms in the DFSG were important for non-programs (conclusion:
yes), we invited anyone and everyone to contribute to the discussion, and
finally we came to a pretty definite conclusion. But it took a long time and
some people *still* don't get it.
>I'm thinking that the use of "Debian" as an noun to refer to products
>of the Debian project is overly confusing -- it invites generalities
>which don't really make sense.
I think you're absolutely right and this is probably just as important a
point. :-)
Thanks for stating this so clearly.
>In my opinion, the best synonym candidate for the word "Debian" in the
>cases where it stands alone is "the Debian system".
I think the best synonym candidate is "the Debian distribution", but "the
Debian system" is good too.
>Also, in my opinion, "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" is intended to
>refer to the same thing as "the Debian system".
I agree.
>Also, in my opinion, I believe our "main" distribution is what we're
>referring to when we speak of "the Debian system".
I agree.
>I believe this interpretation makes sense and is self consistent.
I agree.
>I believe Andrew Suffield's proposal to drop part of the social contract
>is based on a misunderstanding -- basicaly, a misunderstanding of what
>the term "Debian" means in the social contract when it's used by itself.
I assume you are talking about the "drop non-free" proposal, not the
"editorial amendments" GR? In that case, I have no comment. But I do want
to clarify which you are referring to.
>If you think this makes sense, please let me know.
I do, indeed, think this makes sense.
Reply to: