Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
I'm not entirly happy with this proposal. One change is a large
change: Is all in Debian Software or not? This of course has impact on
the whole document, but is a seperate issue from the wording.
* Debian Project Secretary (firstname.lastname@example.org) [040323 19:10]:
> [ Andrews proposal ]
> Old text:
> 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free
> software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include
> the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We
> will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
> Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of
> non-free software.
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free"
> in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We
> promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free
> according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or
> use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the
> system require the use of a non-free component.
Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_
in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a
very good start, and I'd like to keep that there.
In the second sentence, I'd like to keep the word "below", as the DFSG
_are_ a part of the SC.
The current third sentence is (at least in my opinion) much more nicer
said then the new proposal. So, I'd like to just take the sentence:
> We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a
> work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> Guidelines" below.
as replacement of the current second sentence, and leave the first
chapter as it is now.
> 2. We Will Give Back to the Free Software Community
> When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
> them as free software. We will make the best system we can, so that
> free software will be widely distributed and used. We will feed back
> bug-fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the "upstream" authors
> of software included in our system.
> 2. We will give back to the free software community
> When we create new components for the Debian system, we will license
> them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be widely
> distributed and used. We will communicate things such as bug fixes,
> improvements and user requests to the "upstream" authors of works
> included in our system.
well, the new first sentence sound for me just a bit too bureocratic
(I'm indifferent with s/write/create/). "things such as" doesn't sound
too good english to me.
I'm indifferent with the other changes, but I'm still looking for a
"must change"-cause for the whole proposal, because
If it's not broken, then don't fix it.
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C