Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
* Nathanael Nerode (neroden@twcny.rr.com) [040325 00:55]:
> > 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.
> You have a point. Andrew's version is clearer, but less stylish. How about
> this?
Wouldn't it be good to have a stylish and clear text? In my opinion we
shouldn't lose the stylish in trying to get a clearer text. (And, BTW,
we don't have any real hard problem with the current text. But - the
SC is more a "political" text then a real contract. Nobody could sue
Debian for not following the SC, but the SC is one important part of
Debians attractivity.
> > In the second sentence, I'd like to keep the word "below", as the DFSG
> > _are_ a part of the SC.
> Today's debate over matters of total insignificance: Are the DFSG part of
> the SC or are they a separate document? Why do people care, given that the
> same modification rules apply to both of them if they're separate, and the
> same importance is given to both of them?
Why do people try to change this, if there is no need?
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: