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

Summary: Proposal - Rescind GR 2004-003


Since Craig's proposal [1] seems to have gotten enough seconds [2], let me
summarize it while giving a new concise title and a new thread.  Excuse me
if I am biased.

Craig Sanders proposed the following resolution [1] (reformatted):
The Debian Project, 

affirming its commitment to principles of freeness for all works it

but recognizing that changing the Social Contract today would have grave
consequences for the upcoming stable release, a fact which does not
serve our goals or the interests of our users, 

hereby resolves:

   that the amendments to the Social Contract contained within the
   General Resolution "Editorial Amendments To The Social Contract"
   (2004 vote 003) be immediately rescinded.

Here is the list of rationale raised for this proposal:
 * People can make mistake and should be allowed to correct it.
 * This deserves to be an option on the ballet.
 * Full impact assessment by Anthony Towns [3] revealed the hidden issues.
 * We need to get the sarge out the door ASAP. [4]
 * All other proposed GRs to get the sarge out are better than the
   situation created by GR (2004-003).  But they still seem to put heavy
   limitations on the past-sarge releases.  This proposal solves them
   for good.
 * Title of GR (2004-003) was, at least, "misleading" although it may not
   have been intentionally deceptive.
 * Change of SC by GR (2004-003) was not clarification but a radical
   change which subverts the original intent of the old SC.
 * GR (2004-003) may have been incomplete.
 * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will enable useful data, font, documentation,
   and firmware [5] to be included in main.  This will make Debian
   useful distribution.
 * Rescinding GR (2004-003) will clarify and affirm that the correct
   interpretation of the word "software" in old SC does not include
   things such as data, font, documentation, and firmware.
 * Historical document [5] has its own value and even good willed
   "editorial change" [6] may not be even desirable. (Some of us will also
   support other proposals for the GR if they address our concern.)
 * Obscure arrangement for distribution required by the GR (2004-003) may
   marginalize Debian only for "Holier Than Stallman", i.e., the fringe
   fanatics.  We do not want to be seen chasing the _cause_ without
   thinking its _consequence_ by doing this [7].
 * No apologetic statement in SC.
 * We had enough discussion on this subject and some of us are sick of

References and their links: ( >80 char/line)
[1]http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00307.html (Craig Sanders)

[2] As I see as of Sun, 02 May 2004 10:54:44 +0200:
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00322.html (Raphael Hertzog)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00329.html (Xavier Roche)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00339.html (Wouter Verhelst)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00393.html (Osamu Aoki)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00421.html (Marco d'Itri, need to be signed)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00422.html (Davide G. M. Salvetti)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00423.html (Raul Miller)
 http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200404/msg00427.html (Hamish Moffatt)

[3]Anthony Towns: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

[4]Insightful message from Ian Jackson:

[5]Although the fact that data, font, and documentation were not
   restricted to be DSFG is obvious in the old SC since:
     Old SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software,
     New SC: Debian Will Remain 100% Free.
   Whether the firmware is software or not is a debatable one if the
   word "software" is taken out of context.  But it is clear that the
   intent of 1997 SC did not consider the firmware component as a
   software which is required to be DSFG free.  This historical
   perspective is the key here.  See:

[6]For example, change in SC section 3 from "immediately" to "promptly"
   by itself can be a reasonable one to reflect our delay in the actual

[7]I have found the following messages interesting with respect to
   Freedom and Usefulness.

      (Theodore Ts'o -- he is quiet on the Craig's proposal.)

Reply to: