Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:38:33AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Ansgar <ansgar@debian.org> writes:
>>> 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...
I think this is better than the current SC phrasing, but I'm struggling to
find a good, not-confusing way of phrasing the ballot option that people
would vote on. Any suggestions welcome! Also, any other feedback,
particularly from others who seconded the option, about whether they also
think this is a good change.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: