On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 11:21:49AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> You have mistaken my point. My point is not that the clause prohibits
> saying certain things. Rather, the compromise makes a straightforward
> assertion about what Debian *is* , and *is not*.
Uh, no, it's not: it's a straightforward assertion about that thing
that's distributed from ftp.debian.org/debian/dists/*/main/, and another
straightforward assertion about the things that're distributed from
ftp.debian.org/debian.
It happens to use the word "Debian" to talk about one. It doesn't say
anything about forbidding other people from using the word "Debian"
to talk about the other.
> The compromise is "you can include non-free on the server, but it
> won't be part of Debian".
As long as you define Debian as "the Debian system", or "the Debian
GNU/Linux Distribution", sure.
> When you say "oh, but it *is* part of Debian!" then you have said that,
> no matter what the SC says is and is not Debian, your opinion varies.
As long as I define Debian as the entire project, I'm not saying anything
that the social contract itself doesn't say.
> You can express it all you want, that's fine. But the fact that you
> are so sure that Debian *does* include non-free,
Again, the social contract _explicitly declares the Debian project
includes non-free_. Do you believe that's not the case?
The social contract happens not to use the word Debian alone to refer
to anything except the distribution we produce. That's fine, but it's
not the only valid usage of the word.
> You can say whatever you like, it's not what you say that is the
> problem. It's the concept which you wish to express, that it's
> mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not part of Debian, it is
> that *concept* which is inimical to the SC, which explicitly says, as
> clearly as it can, that non-free is not part of Debian.
It's certainly not mindless pedantry to insist that non-free is not
part of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution. But you seem to think that's
a different statement to "not part of Debian". If you do think it's
different, then it's completely unsupported; if you don't think it's
different, then you shouldn't be complaining that people happen to use
the same words to talk about different concepts. That's just the way
English works.
And again, please state exactly what you think this bargain is. You seem
to think it's "The phrase `Debian contains non-free' must never be used",
even to clearly communicate between two parties a concept that's true, in
a manner understood by both parties." If it's not, what is it, exactly?
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