Re: Amendment of Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 11:48:30AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:59:00 +0100, Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org> said:
> > 1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
> > Social Contract:
>
> > We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
> > and kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to
> > this part of our Social Contract. While Sarge will not meet this
> > standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the
> > following release.
>
> > The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
> > follows:
>
> > 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.
>
> > We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation
> > and kernel drivers does not live up to this part of our Social
> > Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will not meet this
> > standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in the next
> > full release.
I'm sorry, there was a textual inconsistency here due to poor editing.
See below.
> > The Social Contract as amended here does not require the removal of
> > non-free documentation or kernel drivers with binary-only firmware
> > from sarge or its point releases; but it restores the full force of
> > version
> > 1.1 with effect from sarge+1. It does not excuse any other DFSG
> > violations in sarge. I feel that we already have plenty of incentive
> > to release sarge in a short timeframe, and that we're well on the
> > way to doing so.
>
>
> The only issue I have with this is as it stand that this shall
> require another 3:1 GR to clean up the social contract after we
> release sarge (or sarge +1, sarge +10, whenever we decide to clean
> it).
>
> Would you consider applying a sunset clause to the amendment,
> so that post sarge we revert to the current SC, without needing yet
> another GR? I don't think we should change foundation documents
> anymore than we absolutely have to.
It needs to stay until sarge+1 is released, since point releases of
sarge are affected by the apology. However, yes, I'd be happy with such
a clause.
I propose this amendment replacing my previous one:
Points 1. and 2. above are removed and replaced with:
1. that the following text be appended to the first clause of the
Social Contract:
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
the following release.
The first clause of the Social Contract as amended will read as
follows:
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.
We apologize that the current state of some of our documentation and
kernel drivers with binary-only firmware does not live up to this
part of our Social Contract. While Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge) will
not meet this standard in those areas, we promise to rectify this in
the next full release.
2. that the paragraph added to the Social Contract by this Resolution
shall be removed from the Social Contract upon the next full release
of Debian after Debian 3.1 (codenamed sarge), without further cause
for deliberation.
Potential seconders, please note that this supersedes my previous
proposed amendment.
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: