On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 04:47:29PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200112/msg00027.html > > > "The Social Contract does not say: Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software > > > and Some Other Things That Aren't Software But Which Are Also Free But > > > Meet a Different Definition Of Free Than That Which Applies to Software, > > > Plus Some Other Stuff That Isn't Free By Any Stretch Of The Imagination > > > But Which We Thought Would Be Nice To Have." > > Which is an interesting post indeed, though I think that particular quote is > > taking things to an unwarranted extreme. > It's precisely what certain agitators on debian-legal appear to be > pursuing.
Well, I am not among them. I think software standards could be modified to make them better applicable to non-software items, and I am not advocating that for the purpose of relaxing standards for non-software items. > > Then I don't understand. Why do you continue bringing up the "100% Free > > Software" if not to assert that everything in Debian is Free Software, and > > thus the DFSG applies? > > Because I have a contextal, operational definition of "software" > vis-a-vis the Social Contract and DFSG, not a metaphysical or > ontological one. I think you may have hit the crux of the disagreement there, though I would call my own definition of software concrete rather than metaphysical. I think that software is software, and if I pick up an Emacs manual or the bat book, I'm not going to think it's software. I think that contextual approach ultimately leads to greater confusion, and that we should instead spell out exactly what we mean without having to use definitions that nobody else does. > > Well, the Social Contract doesn't specifically address it, but I'd say we > > have a pretty clear idea of what we want to do anyway. > > I'm not sure I agree. Some people seem to have a *lot* of trouble > getting the intent of the Social Contract through their heads. True enough, but they're going to have trouble no matter how this turns out. > > > Everything we possibly can ensure to be Free in Debian must be Free. > > > > Yup, I'd agree with that as a worthy goal. > > > > > That means everything except legal notices (copyright notices, license > > > terms, warranty disclaimers, and the like). > > > > That too. > > You mean you agree with my statement, or that "that too" must also be > Free? I agree with your statement. > > That is not my argument, and as you are probably aware, I have agreed that > > the GFDL is not a good license. > > On -legal, I'm much less concerned with whether or not the GNU FDL is a > "good" license than with whether one can easily have a DFSG-free work > licensed under its terms. In my opinion, and in the apparent opinon of > a lot of other people, that's a difficult proposition. Again, I agree. > > > It's a discussion of the Social Contract, for which the correct forum is > > > debian-project. > > > > Fine, I don't care where the discussion is. > > Other people do. :) Just as long as you don't say "let's discuss this at /dev/null".... > > > This is not a technical discussion. Please stop grandstanding on > > > debian-devel. > > > > I was not "grandstanding" anywhere, nor did I begin the thread in -devel. > > You didn't begin it there, but you should have known better than to > contribute to it there. Not everyone is such the topic cop as you :-) > > I was responding to your post at > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200308/msg03193.html, > > which among other things appeared to assert that everything in Debian is > > software, and that I am "willing to compromise the freedoms of their fellow > > developers and our users". That I objected to strongly, as it is most > > certainly not the case, nor has it ever been for me. > > Tactically, I'd suggest that now is not the best time, and -legal is not > the right place, to address the matter that concerns you. There are > people on -legal who will count you as an ally, as a representative of a > "silent majority" which believes we should have as much GNU FDL-licensed > stuff in main as possible. Well, I'll go on record now and state that I do not favor the FDL and do not favor efforts to weaken the requirements of main by adjusting them to permit non-free documentation licenses. > It is my hope that those people can be LARTed into submission on -legal, > as there is no evidence to support their "silent majority" hypotheses. > (In fact, I suspect that all "silent majority" claims are unfalsifiable > by definition.) I agree. > Perhaps you'd care to re-launch your proposition in this forum, however. I have actually seen some very nice looking documentation guidelines pop up on -legal, so it looks like some have taken the ball and run with it, which as far as I'm concerned, is great. I have 118 messages to catch up on that list though (plus the links you gave me). -- John
