Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:02:33PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The social contract currently reads:
> 1 Debian will remain 100% free
> 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?
You left out four of the five sections of the Social Contract, and all
but one of those sections use the word "free". Two of those sections
draw a contrast between "free" and something else.
Proposal F says " The Debian project resolves that it will not compromise
on freedom". I see nothing here that limits that lack of compromise to
section 1 of the social contract.
It's certainly not the case that it's the social contract which introduces
an ambiguity on whatever it is that we don't compromise on. You won't
find "will not compromise" anywhere in the social contract.
> 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.
I will agree that that was how the social contract was intended.
I'm not sure that that's how the social contract is being used in this
> > 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?
This isn't a great analogy, because [a] their undefeatability and
unnavigability have already been "determined", and [b] you won't be in
a position of authority over this aspect of either Scylla or Charbdis.
If your statement were somehow to be made into something that would
affect both AND if neither previously had this sort of characteristic,
then you'd have a great analogy.
That said, this analogy strikes me as being very much like [c] in