Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, 26 May 2004 21:42:39 -0400, Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > The ambiguities it introduces have to do with "not compromising
>> > on freedom".
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 08:19:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Ifail to see the ambiguity here. We say debian shall be 100% free
>> (used to say software), and we ain't gonna compromise that freedom.
> Except, that's not how it's written. Which is where some ambiguity
> comes from. The statement could just as easily be about other
> freedoms which are important to us.
> Also, it's the Debian System we promise will be 100% free -- not
> debian as a whole. If someone wants to put SUS docs up on
> debian.org, and they've got the appropriate permissions, that's
> currently OK.
> But both your statement and proposal F could be interpreted to
> forbid that.
The social contract currently reads:
1 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.
So, such an ambiguity is not introduced by proposal F, it
resides in the social contract itself -- notice how the first promise
is that "Debian will remain 100% free", not the debian system?
Arguably, the usage is that the former is shorthand for the latter,
but I tend to think we make statements (as in the social contract,
and in position statements) as statements -- not lawerly tomes with
riders and codicils extending into several volumes, which is what
some of the nit picking seems to require.
>> Again, do not jump to conclusions. Do not project. Do not
>> extend. Do not presume to think you know about the speakers mindset
>> beyond what the speaker actually said. No strawmen.
> What strawmen? These interpretations fit completely within what the
> proposal actually says.
>> Now, shall we compromise about keeping the interests of our users
>> at heart? I hope not, but this GR says nothing one way or the other
>> about it.
> And if you have two priorities, one of which you won't compromise
> on, and the other where nothing has been said about compromising, in
> a conflict where you have to choose between the two, the one that
> you won't compromise on automatically wins that conflict.
If I say Scylla is undefeatable, does that imply that
charybdis is navigable?
Is this an out-take from the "BRADY BUNCH"?
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C