[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

On Wed, Mar 24, 2004 at 09:07:27PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> 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.

Forward references should be avoided wherever possible, as they make
documents harder to read. "Ooh, promises, shiny, make it bigger" is
just hippie fluff.

The SC should not be fluffy. It should be clear, unambiguous, and easy
to understand. It should not sound like something from Hollywood.

> In the second sentence, I'd like to keep the word "below", as the DFSG
> _are_ a part of the SC.

I'd dispute that anyway, since we recently passed a resolution which
wrote it into the constitution that they were distinct documents, but
eliminating "below" was done along with a few other changes to remove
typographical dependencies. The SC should not have to be formatted in
one specific way in order to read correctly; for example, it could be
reasonably presented on two different pages, but not with the text as
currently written.

> The current third sentence is (at least in my opinion) much more nicer
> said then the new proposal.

It promotes non-free software over free software, and has the software
== ? bug, so it must change. If you'd been paying attention while it
was being rewritten then you'd understand why this is the most
rational way to do it. It's also easier to read this way.

> > 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/).

Tell that to people who produce free artwork. You're assuming that
they don't exist or matter without even thinking about it.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: