Le jeudi, 8 septembre 2022, 07.14:09 h CEST Russ Allbery a écrit : > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <o...@debian.org> writes: > > Thanks for that proposal Russ! > > > > While we're at updating the Social Contract's article 5, what about a > > more invasive cleanup, to reflect reality ? > > [...] > > > What about this (which adds the non-free-firmware area, replaces "CD > > manufacturers" with "installation media providers", replaces "on their > > > > CD" with "on their installation media": > >> The Debian Social Contract is replaced with a new version that is > >> identical to the current version in all respects except that the point 5 > >> > >> reads as follows: > >> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards > >> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that > >> do > >> not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created > >> "contrib", "non-free" and "non-free-firmware" areas in our archive > >> for > >> these works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian > >> system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We > >> encourage installation media providers to read the licenses of the > >> packages in these areas and determine if they can distribute the > >> packages on their installation medias. Thus, although non-free works > >> are > >> not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure > >> for non-free packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing > >> lists). The Debian official media may include firmware that is > >> otherwise > >> not part of the Debian system to enable use of Debian with hardware > >> tha > >> requires such firmware. > > With Steve's change and a few other tweaks to try to make this a bit more > concise: > > 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards > > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that > do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have > created areas in our archive for these works. The packages in these > areas are not part of the Debian system, although they have been > configured for use with Debian. We encourage distributors of Debian > to read the licenses of the packages in these areas and determine if > they can distribute the packages on their media. Thus, although > non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and > provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug > tracking system and mailing lists). The Debian official media may > include firmware that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to > enable use of Debian with hardware tha requires such firmware. > > I do think this sounds more up-to-date, and getting rid of "CDs" does feel > like an overdue edit. This would also resolve how to phrase the ballot > option (although someone's going to ask for a diff). What does everyone > else think about this?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
(Missing a "t" at the end of "tha*T* requires such firmware")
> Going *way* out on a limb (and to be honest I'm leaning hard against
> proposing this because I think this level of change would require more
> than a week's worth of discussion), I think something like this that
> reorders and trims the section down would be even better:
>
> 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards
>
> We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
> do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
> created areas in our archive for these works. These packages have
> been configured for use with Debian and we provide some
> infrastructure for them (such as our bug tracking system and mailing
> lists), but they are not part of the Debian system. We encourage
> distributors of Debian to read the licenses of the packages in these
> areas and determine if they can distribute these packages on their
> media. The Debian official media may include firmware from these
> areas that is otherwise not part of the Debian system to enable use
> of Debian with hardware that requires such firmware.
As-is (that is: "changing only SC5 with a 3:1 majority") seems to be one very
simple way to express the change we (some of us) want. The "statement of the
day" is a nice addition, but can risk being nitpicked-upon. I'd definitely
second a ballot option that would propose just this.
From my sparse reading of the discussion so far, it now seems clear that the
SC needs amending; not doing so and finding convoluted ways to interpret its
actual version risks creating more confusion and misunderstandings than it
solves. And I think we need the courage to update our foundational documents
when meaningful. Making official Debian Installer images with firmware seems
like one of these important milestones; moments in which Debian-the-project
needs to reflect what we Debian-the-people feel about these things.
(And if we fail at finding the requested majorities to make these changes,
maybe Debian is not the right project to provide these -with-firmware images
from.)
> But as mentioned, I think this is probably too big of a change for this
> point in the process. (I'll still throw it out there, though, in case
> there's overwhelming sentiment the other way.)
I disagree; this looks precisely like the change I think we should be making.
--
OdyX
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
