-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I hearby second this amendment.
Joe Nahmias [EMAIL PROTECTED] Branden Robinson wrote: > I propose the following amendment: > > - 5.2 The Foundation Documents are the works entitled "Debian > - Social Contract" and "Debian Free Software Guidelines". > + 5.2 The Foundation Document is the work entitled "Debian > + Social Contract". > > Rationale > --------- > > It occurs to me that there are some people who may wish to afford the > Debian Social Contract the opportunity of a 25% minority veto, but not > wish to extend this to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. > > My reasoning is grounded on an following argument which I made on > debian-legal several months ago. > > My experience in the Debian Project leads me to believe that we approach > licensing issues in a quasi-judicial fashion. We have certain bedrock > principles which are broad and general, embodied in our Social Contract. > Above that we have at least two layers of increasingly detailed, but > less foundational, articulation of principle. > > In my opinion, this is only natural. When faced with a software license > and we have to answer the question "is this Free Software?", we can take > one of two approaches: have some sort of Freedom Oracle who cogitates > upon the question for a while and gives us an answer, or we can attempt > in a collaborative manner to argue and reason our way towards an answer. > > Here's the analogy I presented to debian-legal back in March 2003: > > FSF's definition of Free Software --> Constitution > Debian Free Software Guidelines --> statutory law > debian-legal discussions --> case law > > (The above is admittedly wholly grounded on the U.S. legal system for > its metaphorical value.) > > This is part of the reason I think it wouldn't be a disaster if we > permitted the DFSG to be modified through a majority vote of the > developers -- that's because it's not the REAL foundation. The real > foundation lies in our answer to the question, "What is freedom?" Our > Social Contract pledges us to Free Software; the Debian Free Software > Guidelines are not a *definition* of Free Software, but rather a > template into which we place a license; we then see if the license fails > to mesh with the template in some way. > > So the Debian archive administrators and the debian-legal mailing list, > to whom it often falls to resolve questions about the licensing of a > work we are to distribute, attempt to interpret the DFSG and the > licenses brought before them. Every package maintainer who cares to pay > attention to the license on the work he or she is packaging also plays a > part in this process. > > We analyze licenses for "freeness" in a context -- an *important* > context -- which is our understanding of what freedom means. This is > one reason we should not be overly literal in our interpretations of the > DFSG, and blithely brand a license as "DFSG-free" if it seems to abide by > letter of the DFSG in its narrowest reading, but poses a threat to our > users or Free Software that we did not have the foresight to articulate > in the DFSG. > > The Social Contract pledges us to defend the interests of our users and > Free Software, not to push into "main" every work that fails to run > afoul of the Debian Free Software Guidelines in some specific way. > > Thus, I think we should regard the DFSG as akin to "statutory law"; it's > important, and violating it has consequences, but ultimately it is just > a tool in service of the foundational principles. In the U.S., where > statutory law conflicts with the Constitution, the law loses -- and it is > judges who make this determination. For the Debian Project, I think > that if the DFSG and the meaning of freedom conflict -- whether the DFSG > is too permissive in a given case or not permissive enough -- our > foundation of freedom must triumph, and the DFSG must be re-interpreted > or modified. > > Therefore, I think it might be a good idea if the DFSG were allowed to > be more of a "living document" than the Social Contract. If the DFSG is > amendable with a simply majority, it will be more easily able to ebb and > flow with the lessons we learn on the debian-legal mailing list, and > better able to react to the creative new ways some proprietary software > interests find to undermine freedom. > > The debian-legal list may be on the front lines of this effort, but it > will still fall to the entire Project to ratify actual changes to the > text of the DFSG, though section 4.1.5 of the Constitution. > > I do not, however, see why a 3:1 supermajority should be required to > modify a document with as narrow a focus as the DFSG has. > > -- > G. Branden Robinson | I had thought very carefully about > Debian GNU/Linux | committing hara-kiri over this, but > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I overslept this morning. > http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Toshio Yamaguchi -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/eJIMKl23+OYWEqURAjy5AKDm7UmhMcwHbdO4woJif9GnBMnSCQCfXblj e2tWAUGTIK/y6IyfkY1bOp4= =zeYx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
