Re: _Our_ resolution merely affirms the status quo
On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 06:32:11AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Graham Wilson (email@example.com) [040605 06:25]:
> > By dropping proposal F from the ballot, we are dropping the only
> > proposal that does not support releasing Sarge as is. We will not drop a
> > proposal simply because you disagree with it.
> But we should drop proposal G because simply because some other people
> disagree? Or did I understand the latest mails wrong?
Proposal G has a number of problems, such that I think it should not be
added to the current ballot:
* The proposal contains two seperate orthogonal proposals.
The first (all but the last paragraph) simply re-affirms the social
contract, and doesn't really do anything. The second advocates
overruling AJ's new release policy.
* It contradicts the social contract.
`Social Contract' with the Free Software Community
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.
Old Release policy
Documentation in main and contrib must be freely distributable, and
wherever possible should be under a DFSG-free license. This will
likely become a requirement post-sarge.
An exception exists for "firmware" - that is code that will be
uploaded to a hardware device as part of making it functional. This
may be distributed in main even without source or modifications
being allowed; but you must be careful not to violate the GPL by
incorporating it into a GPLed program. This generally means using
the hotplug request_firmware() interface to load the firmware from
userspace. The firmware does not need to be moved into a separate
The proposal advocates re-instating the former release policy, which
has us releasing non-free documentation.
* It contradicts itself.
The proposal states that "we promise to use the [DFSG] as guidelines
for software that is allowed to go in the Distribution," but that we
should follow AJ's former release policy. See above.
* It promises to use common sense.
It might be common sense to me to not release Debian with known
non-free components, and knowingly violate the social contract. It
might be common sense to you to release soon, ignoring these issues.
Whose common sense do we apply?