 |
|
 |
|
Next: [Proposal] Revised Social Contract
|
| Author |
Message |
External

Since: Sep 17, 2005 Posts: 303
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:50 am
Post subject: Updated draft of social contract changes Archived from groups: linux>debian>vote (more info?)
|
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This is an updated draft of the proposal I posted this morning.
I've fixed several errors in part five.
Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 16th. There's a
non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
The rationale for this proposal is: clean up the social contract and
bring its words in line with the way we have been interpreting it.
- --
I propose the following resolution:
We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment. The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.
Here's the replacement for the social contract:
Debian's Social Contract
The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system. This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
1. Debian will remain 100% free software`
Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
never make the system depend on an item of non-free software.
2. We will give back to the free software community
When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
authors of works included in our system.
3. We will not hide problems
We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
visible to others.
4. Our priorities are our users and free software
We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of software
that doesn't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base", and
will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
To make our system more attractive to people with mild dependencies
on non-free software, we have created "contrib" and "non-free"
areas in our internet archive. The software in these directories is
not needed by most people, and we do not guarantee all software in
the non-free area may be distributed in other ways. Thus, although
we're working to reduce people's dependence on non-free software,
we support users who are still dependent. Additionally, we will
work to find, package and support free alternatives to non-free
software so people who use only free software can work with users
of non-free software.
- --
Raul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQEVAwUBQAOHMfK/+Baey4gJAQGzCggAj1tdBTVRYCtKBqVVj6xRtTvvP5ilz4oA
p8sYwCDCu6/e3AtJa4W936PnRGBUIea/oX5oTbBkll8CSeTs92KO0YcxW2rJ91C5
mkat9Nz666c94a8iVI8UzbcAdKB15+TjKjJTf84dWs9X/Ub6dwdKHOxYOzsbQXPV
PAvCtqdR7Q9m97G6n/2CB2LuoL5HugVpiL7A/r7PwcONPkBAkNmcYGpatZKGyQqm
wnz7s7msXZUMlhWv1Wmnad8WLeuflhAoxMfUadlBedEYVFGVlJ/1vFQcg9TD5056
meISpFhoBLrA25A+zyoQzhIFv6Euh1Rn4fz7HQgWJfU8rc9AvaOfhw==
=zFvO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Nov 25, 2006 Posts: 86
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: Updated draft of social contract changes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 12:44:35AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Let's hold off on seconding this proposal until the 16th. There's a
> non-zero chance that it will need to be changed again.
ack.
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free software`
^ Bonus backtick here.
> Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
s/general purpose/general-purpose/ ? Google results are mixed.
> 3. We will not hide problems
>
> We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
> at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
> visible to others.
s/promptly become visible to others/become visible to others promptly/
sounds better to me, but I don't have any good reasons why.
Thanks,
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish DeleteThis @debian.org> <hamish DeleteThis @cloud.net.au>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Oct 31, 2003 Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 11:50 am
Post subject: Re: Updated draft of social contract changes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello Raul,
Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
mail.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Debian's Social Contract
>
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to create a free operating system. This is the "social contract"
> we offer to the free software community.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>
> 1. Debian will remain 100% free software`
>
> never make the system depend on an item of non-free software.
Remove "an item of".
> 4. Our priorities are our users and free software
>
> works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
Change "or" to "nor", strike "attempt to"
> In furtherance of these goals,
> we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
> no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
Entire sentence is redundant.
> 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
> We
> support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base", and
> will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
This sentence is misplaced. It should go in the previous clause
as it has nothing to do with non-free.
Hope this helps!
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Sep 17, 2005 Posts: 303
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Updated draft of social contract changes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> Very interesting proposal. Here are some grammatical corrections. I
> have some other issues with this, but I'll will address those in another
> mail.
Thanks for your comments!
I do have one immediate question:
> > 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
>
> Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
>
> > We
> > support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base", and
> > will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
>
> This sentence is misplaced. It should go in the previous clause
> as it has nothing to do with non-free.
I don't understand why you say that "Linux Standard Base" has nothing
to do with non-free.
Consider, for example:
http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=1&categ...es=Gene
Binary-only software is one of the characteristics of non-free software.
Yes, it also has applicability to binary-only distribution of free
software, but that's not the same as "nothing to do with non-free".
Do you agree with me? If not, could you expand on your views?
Thanks,
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Oct 31, 2003 Posts: 6
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Updated draft of social contract changes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 11:42:21AM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > 5. Programs that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> >
> > Replace "doesn't" with "don't" or "do not"
> >
> > > We
> > > support interoperability standards such as "Linux Standard Base", and
> > > will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
> >
> > This sentence is misplaced. It should go in the previous clause
> > as it has nothing to do with non-free.
>
> I don't understand why you say that "Linux Standard Base" has nothing
> to do with non-free.
s/nothing to do with/orthogonal to/; see below for more detail.
> Consider, for example:
> http://www.linuxbase.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&myfaq=yes&id_cat=1&categ...es=Gene
>
> Binary-only software is one of the characteristics of non-free software.
>
> Yes, it also has applicability to binary-only distribution of free
> software, but that's not the same as "nothing to do with non-free".
>
> Do you agree with me? If not, could you expand on your views?
AIUI, LSB is a standard to ensure binary compatibility across linux
distros. This sentence would therfore seem to declare our commitment to
our users to be interoperable on the binary level -- an issue orthogonal
to how those binaries are licensed. To me, that would fall under clause
4 of the SC where we pledge to support our users in all their myriad
ways of using Debian. I see clause 5 as strictly addressing software
with a non-free license and how we will respond/deal with it -- which
has not much to do with the LSB.
That said, this seems like a fairly radical change to the SC (in the
sense that it adds an additional compatibility requirement to the Debian
system -- cf. grammatical changes) and much more technical in nature
than the other issues discussed therein. I think this is more the
domain of debian-policy but I can see why some might want it in the SC,
and this should probably be discussed further before being written into
the SC as such.
Hope this helps!
Joe
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
External

Since: Nov 25, 2006 Posts: 86
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue Jan 13, 2004 10:30 pm
Post subject: Re: Updated draft of social contract changes [Login to view extended thread Info.] Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 02:21:41PM -0500, Joe Nahmias wrote:
> AIUI, LSB is a standard to ensure binary compatibility across linux
> distros. This sentence would therfore seem to declare our commitment to
> our users to be interoperable on the binary level -- an issue orthogonal
> to how those binaries are licensed. To me, that would fall under clause
Well, practically speaking we don't need binary compatibility for free
software because we can recreate those binaries from source. The LSB
ensures we can run existing binaries without source, which are all
non-free programs.
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish.RemoveThis@debian.org> <hamish.RemoveThis@cloud.net.au>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-request.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |  |
|
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|