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

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Thu, 27 May 2004 07:36:38 -0400, Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> said: 

> 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.

	It was merely an example demonstrating that the SC also says
 that "Debian" shall be free, not just the distribution. Just another
 example showing that even the SC is written by mere mortals, and not
 my lawyers; a certain context and judgement is required to
 understand what we mean.

> 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.

	And there is nothing to tell us that the freedom we won't
 compromise upon mentioned in proposal F is restricted to the freedoms
 in the SC. 

>> 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 context.

	The debian project resolves that blue is the color of the
 sky, and will never knowingly issue another release ...

	Hmm. That still makes some kind of sense. I mean, the first
 clause of the sentence need not have any direct relation to the
 social contract whatsoever.  Indeed, I am beginning to think it does
 not; we are just resolving to not compromise on freedom; freedom
 related to librè software, but not narrowly defined as in the SC. 

>> > 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.

	When I signed on to the social contract, the
 uncompromisability of all the tenets of the SC were  fixed in my
 mind. Your mileage may vary. (umm, uncompromisability and
 immutability are different, btw).

Since computers do the sending, however, it's possible to address a
single package to a mailing list of recipients with a shared interest
in the subject matter -- be it cold fusion or hot pornography.  Joe
Abernathy <(C) 1990 Houston Chronicle>
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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

Reply to: