On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:40:00PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than > > what things are certainly seems ignorant historically, and still seems > > pretty dubious. > It's obvious to you that what things are called is irrelevant, but it > is, in fact, one of the things that the Social Contract is concerned > with.
At no point does the social contract say *anything* about how Debian
will be marketed or talked about.
> > > Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the
> > > bargain, it's broken down.
> > Uh, dude, you're the one trying to ensure Debian doesn't distribute
> > non-free at all. You wanna talk about broken bargains, go ahead.
> My point is that the compromise has broken down. You have given up
> the careful labelling that the SC calls for,
The Social Contract is, in fact, pretty careless with its labelling; if it
weren't it would not be ambiguous. For example either of the following could
easily have been written, were the wording considered important:
Debian will never be associated with non-free software
Recognising the Debian project's commitment to free
software, the name Debian shall refer to our distribution
of entirely free software, and nothing else.
Programs that don't meet our free-software standards
We will allow the use of our machines by an independent
project that does not use the Debian name to maintain
software that does not conform to the DFSG.
or, if the wording were important, but the distinction between the project
and the distribution was still desired, then we could have said:
The Debian GNU/Linux Distribution will remain 100% free software
That we didn't do either of these and used a short ambiguous term in
the heading, followed by a longer unambiguous phrase in the body seems
to indicate that it wasn't thought to be important.
Which doesn't mean you shouldn't think it's important, or that it
isn't important, but claiming that it implies the SC calls for "careful
labelling" is nonsense.
> If you aren't willing to abide by the existing compromise, then we
> need to negotiate a new one.
I invite you to show me /anywhere/ that tries to tell me how I should speak
about Debian.
I invite you to show me /anywhere/ that an advocate of removing non-free
has offered any benefits at their own expense to users or maintainers
of non-free software, as part of "renegotiating" this bargain.
But hey, no doubt you're right and like so many things it's all my fault,
and entirely due to my irresponsibility. Go me.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
