On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Bdale Garbee wrote:
>"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes:
>
>> I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:
>
>I disagree strongly on this.
>
>We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
>making to our users, and then stop.
Yes! Thanks for pointing this out. I've been re-reading the various
proposals around the thread here, and none of them really fit for
me. You've hit the nail on the head for me. The point of the SC is
describe what *we* aim to do, not what users should do.
>Specifically, we should avoid including text that attempts to tell
>them what they need to do, such as:
>
>> We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
>> to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
>> they can distribute it on their media or products.
>
>If you really think we need to say this to downstream consumers /
>distributors of our work, I'm sure we can find a way to do that. But
>the Social Contract is the wrong place. It is, and must remain, an
>articulation of our values and the associated commitments we're making
>to our users. The fewer words it must contain to achieve those
>objectives, the better.
>
>> An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some
>> practical consequences of redistributing non-free software.
>
>I applaud and support this goal... but please don't burden our
>fundamental statement of core values with such content.
I think it *may* make sense to have some extra text *alongside* the SC
to explain the ramifications for users, but it doesn't need to be in
the main SC text itself. Does that sounds sensible?
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature