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

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> writes:
>> Seconded.
>> One suggestion: if we modify the Social Contract then we can as well
>> include "non-free-firmware" explicitly as well, i.e., replace
>>     We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for
>>     these works.
>> by
>>     We have created "contrib", "non-free-firmware" and "non-free"
>>     areas in our archive for these works.
>I considered doing this, but then I decided against it because I think the
>current wording implicitly allows for there being multiple non-free areas.
>I know that's not how we're currently reading it, and probably not how it
>was intended, but one can interpret the same sentence as saying there is
>one or more contrib area and one or more non-free area.
>I like that a little better since it avoids having to update a foundation
>document for what's essentially bookkeeping.  Suppose, for example, that
>we want to split out some other bit of non-free in the future for some
>non-SC-related reason (contrib or non-free debug symbols or whatever).  It
>feels weird to have to amend the SC just to add the new name to a list.

Right. Maybe it might be helpful to tweak the wording the *other* way
then, something like:

     We have created extra areas in our archive for these works.

so we don't specify the areas explicitly? Just a thought...

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I can't ever sleep on planes ... call it irrational if you like, but I'm
 afraid I'll miss my stop" -- Vivek Das Mohapatra

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: