* Raul Miller > Here's the prior text of the first clause of the social contract: > > 1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software > > We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution entirely free > software. As there are many definitions of free software, we include > the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will > support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but > we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. > > It's clear to me that the release manager was drawing a distinction > between "software" and "copyrighted works distributable in digital form".
This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like that, with no luck. To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" (which are not "software"). The social contract never read "Debian Will Remain 80% Free Software and 20% Copyrighted Works Distributable In Digital Form (Which Are Not Software)", nor "100% Of The Software In Debian Will Remain Free". As I read the old SC, and I can see no other way, it would have had to instead read something like one of my above examples for Mr. Towns' interpretation to be logically possible. For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software", right? I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong. > In other words, before the release of the new social contract, there was > ambiguity as to which definition of "software" was intended in the DFSG > -- the release manager picked the most typical definition, and this was > supported in his opinion by historical practice. > > With the release of the new social contract, it's clear to him that > this is not the correct interpretation. That people are not arguing > the opposite reinforces that belief. I always assumed that there were no ambiguity, and that the Sarge RC policy deliberately violated the social contract on a few select issues, in the name of pragmatism. Not that it was immoral to do so - there was not any uproar against it, and my impression was that the developers found it to be an okay thing to do while we awaited the talks with the FSF to progress and so on. > With the release of the new social contract, it's clear to him that > this is not the correct interpretation. That people are not arguing > the opposite reinforces that belief. Every single one of the GR proposals that's on the table right now seems to me to suggest that the meaning -has- changed, and none speak of the changes as editorial. That seems to me as a fairly strong indication that people feel Mr. Towns' interpretation to have been the correct one. Except parhaps the rationale of proposal A, which seems to me to be some sort of admission that the proposal itself is not needed except to allow Mr. Towns to return to his (incorrect) SC interpretation and thus reinstate the (SC-violating) Sarge RC policy. I would guess that, if you're correct in your claim that Mr. Towns has realized that his interpretation was incorrect all along, passing this proposal will effectively become a no-op. I'm reluctant to vote for a resolution that acknowledges that the changes made to the social contract were anything but editorial. I'd much rather just override the RM so that the old RC policy is reinstated, in the spite of the fact that is violating the social contract. But I guess there won't be a fitting option on the ballot for me.. -- Tore Anderson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
