Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * 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
Yes. :-)
> 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?
Yeah.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: