In gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote, ajt wrote: Thanks Aj, that's the best GR proposed so far. I second the proposal below. Cheers, Moritz > ---- > The Debian Project resolves that: > > (a) The Social Contract shall be reverted to its original form, > as at http://www.debian.org/social_contract.1.0 > > (b) The term "software" as used in the Social Contract shall be > presumed only to cover programs, scripts, libraries and similar > executable works to be executed directly as part of the Debian > System. > > (c) In addition to the commitments made in the Social Contract, > the Debian System shall only include documentation, images, > sounds, video, fonts and similar works that meet the Debian > Free Software Guidelines, and are available in some reasonably > modifiable form. > > (d) Notwithstanding the above, the Debian Free Software Guidelines > shall not be applied to logos, firmware or the text of copyright > licenses that may be included in the Debian System. > > (e) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project Leader shall: > i. ensure that the Debian community has a good understanding > of the technical and legal issues that prevent the Debian > Free Software Guidelines from being applied to logos and > firmware in a manner that meets the needs of our users; > ii. ensure that project resources are made available to > people working on addressing those issues; > iii. provide a report to the Debian community on progress achieved > in these areas at DebConf 7 in Edinburgh. > > (f) Following the release of etch, the Debian Project as a whole shall > reopen the question of which commitments should be codified in the > project's Social Contract. This shall including both an online > consultation with Debian users, Debian derivatives and the free > software community, and a public in-person discussion and debate > at DebConf 7 in Edinburgh in honour of the 10th anniversary of > the original publication of the Social Contract on the 4th > of July 1997. > ---- > > Personally, I think it's a mistake to have a social contract that we > can't meet -- I would much rather say "we're not only meeting our social > contract, but we're going above and beyond it" than keep worrying about > how we've overpromised and keep having to underdeliver. > > I think (e) is an important part of meeting our users' expectations, > as well as our own, that committing to releasing etch on time won't be > a permanent cost to our efforts towards free, sourceful firmware. I'm > happy to commit to it, and I presume whoever's elected DPL next year > will say during the campaign if they will or won't commit to it too, > so the project can take that into account. If people think that point is > worth adding to any of the other proposals that defer the free-firmware > issue to post-etch, that's fine by me. > > It's fair to ask whether interpreting "software" to not cover all sorts > of other things we distribute is a sensible thing to do, whether on a > principled level ("but we *want* those other things to be free too"), > a logical level ("what about postscript, or self-extracting zip files of > documentation?") or a semantic level ("software means bits, it doesn't > mean executables"). But it seems to me that the current answer we have > to that question is not working -- and given the length of time we've > already had, I don't think there's a great likelihood that that will > fundamentally change any time soon. I think it would be a waste of time > giving it yet another chance instead of spending the time coming up with > something better. So personally, I think we really do need to start this > debate afresh, hence (f). > > TTBOMK the Debian, Firefox and Thunderbird  logos all currently have > non-free copyright licenses acting as trademark protection, hence the > specific exception for logos, given images are mentioned previously. To > date, no one else has been particularly interested in helping work out > what we want to do about protecting the Debian logo by trademark instead > of (non-DFSG) copyright provisions. > > I believe that 5.1(5) of the constitution allows the project leader to > propose draft resolutions/amendments without requiring the usual seconding > process (cf ). I'm not intending to exercise that power here; please > consider the above to be my personal view as a developer. > > Seconds and comments appreciated.
Description: Digital signature