Re: GR: Alternative editorial changes to the SC
Andreas Barth wrote:
> I herby propose the following editorial changes to the SC, as
> alternative to Andrews proposal:
> | 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software
> | We promise to keep the Debian system and all its components entirely
OK, while we're proposing changes....
How about "...entirely free software. This includes programs,
documentation, data, and any other works which are part of the Debian
system (except possibly license texts which are distributed only for legal
reasons). We provide the guidelines..."
This would clarify the main point that has been spawning endless attempts by
occasional maintainers to sneak non-free stuff into "main".
> | free software. We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if
> | a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
> | Guidelines" 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.
> | 2. We Will Give Back To The Free Software Community
> | When we create new components of the Debian system, we will license
> | them as free software. We will make the best system we can, so that
> | free works will be widely distributed and used. We will communicate
> | bug fixes, improvements, user requests, etc. to the "upstream" authors
> | of works included in our system.
> | 3. We will not hide problems
> | We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at
> | all times. Reports that people file online will immediately become
> | visible to others.
> | 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> | We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
> | community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
> | will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
> | kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free works
> | that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to charge a
> | fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow others to
> | create distributions containing both the Debian system and other
> | works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals, we will
> | provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with no legal
> | restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
> | 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
> | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do
> | not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
> | "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these works. The
> | packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, although
> | they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage CD
> | manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and
> | determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
> | although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use
> | and provide infrastructure (such as our bug tracking system and
> | mailing lists) for non-free packages.
> Changes to Andrews proposal:
> 1.: More or less the current SC, with the second sentence replaced
> with the first sentence of Andrews proposal and added the word "below"
> to it.
> 2.: More or less the current SC; only replaced the word "write" with
> 3.: keep the word "immediately" instead of "promptly" (as this is, at
> least in my opinion, easier to understand for non-native speakers).
It means something different; "promptly" is as soon as is reasonable;
"immediately" is *right this minute, before you go downstairs*.
> 4.: Same as Andrews proposal
> 5.: Same as Andrews proposal, except that in the last sentence the
> words "for non-free packages" have been moved to the end to prevent
> the mis-interpretation that the BTS is not free.
Make sure your vote will count.