bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen!

[jonesserena]

Von: Fr. Serena Jones
 
Bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen
 
Ich bin die obengenannte Person aus Kuwait.Ich bin mit Dr. Harry Jones, der 
neun Jahre lang für die Kuwaitsche Botschaft gearbeitet hatte, bevor er in 2002 
verstarb, verheiratet.
Wir waren elf Jahre verheiratet, ohne Kinder. Er erlag einer kurzen Krankheit, 
die nur vier Tage dauerte. Befor er starb, wurden wir als Christen 
wiedergeboren. Nach seinem Tod beschloß ich nicht wieder zu heiraten und keine 
Kinder außerhalb der Ehe zu bekommen, weil die Bibel dagegen ist.
Als mein Ehemann noch am Leben war, hat er die Summe von 8,6 Millionen U.S. 
Dollar bei einer Finanzen/Sicherheit Gesellschaft in Amsterdam/Holland 
hinterlegt. Im Augenblick befindet sich das Geld immer noch da.
Vor kurzem erfuhr ich von meinem Arzt, dass ich die nächsten drei Monate nich 
durchhalten werde, wegen einer Krebskrankheit. 
Was mich am meisten stört ist meine schlagartige Krankheit.
Meinen Zustand kennend, beschloß ich diesen Fonds einer Kirche, oder noch 
besser, einem Christen, der das Geld wie ich es hier beschreibe nutzen wird, zu 
spenden.
Ich wünsche mir eine Kirche, die diesen Fonds nutzen wird um Kirchen , 
Weisenhäuser und Witwen, die das Wort Gottes verbreiten, zu unterstützen, und 
sicherstellt, dass das Haus Gottes aufrechterhalten wird. Die Bibel gibt uns zu 
verstehen,dass die Hand die gibt
gesegnet ist.

Ich habe mich dazu entschieden weil ich keine Kinder habe, die das Geld erben 
könnten, und die Verwandten meines Ehemannes keine Christen sind und ich möchte 
nicht, dass das hart verdiente Geld meines Mannes von Ungläubigen missbraucht 
wird. Ich möchte nicht, dass dieses Geld auf sündhafter Weise benutzt wird. 
Deshalb kamm ich zu diesem gewagten Entschluß.

Ich habe keine Angst vor dem Tod, weil ich weiß wohin ich gehe, Ich werde im 
Schoß Gottes sein.Exodus 14VS14 sagt, dass der Herr für mein Recht kämpfen wird 
und  dass ich meinen Frieden bewahren soll.

Ich brauche keine telefonische Kommunikation wegen meiner Gesundheit uns weil 
die Verwandten meines Mannes immer bei mir sind.

Ich möchte nicht, dass sie von dieser Entwicklung erfahren. Mit Gott ist alles 
möglich.

So bald ich Ihre Antwort bekomme werde ich Sie mit der Finanzen/Sicherheit 
Gesellschaft in Amsterdam/Holland in Verbindung setzen. Ich werde auch eine 
Vollmacht für Sie als Begünstigter ausstellen.

Ich möchte, dass Sie und die Kirche immer für mich beten, weil der Herr mein 
Hirte ist.

Ich bin glücklich das Leben eines würdigem Christens gelebt zu haben. Wenn man 
Gott dienen will muss das im Geiste und Wahrheit sein.

Bitte beten Sie Ihr ganzes Leben.

Jede Verspätung Ihrer Antwort wird mich veranlassen eine Kirche, oder einen 
Christen, für den selben Zweck zu suchen.

Bitte versichern Sie mich, dass Sie wie beschrieben handeln werden. Ich hoffe 
von Ihnen zu hören. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Raul Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html

Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.

The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.

The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
contract, which is what I've tried to do here.

This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
that text as follows:

- -- 

I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
 area may be distributed in other ways.  For those who need to run
 software we do not distribute, free o

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:30:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
> >maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
> >while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation.
> 
> Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus can't be "patently 
> false." Neither can it be defamation or slander.

All the same, i feel insulted by it, and expect apologize, and that he
stops making such untrue (iof not idiotic) claims, with only a mascerade
of argumentation.

Also, again, the work i do, be it on free packages or the one non-free
package i maintain is a gift of my time and work to the rest of the
world.

And anyone claiming that this is non-ethical or leads to non-ethical
stuff has sever ethical problems itself. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he 
> >>regards 
> >>it as unethical was given. Finally, I don't think there was
> >
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
> 
> Indeed, it could be, but I think the long thread shows that he really 
> does regard it as unethical, in his opinion. Ultimately, most ethics 
> are a matter of opinion and not codified.

Sure, and he really is insulting me and all my fellow non-free
maintainer by that. I think he don't realize this, which is why i
stepped forth in this.

> >>malice against you personally, or any other developer, as he took
> >Well, slander without intentions is still slander.
> 
> At least in UK law, slander is a type of "malicious falsehood", so 
> slander without malice cannot be.

Well, whatever, i am no english native speaker, so please excuse me.

> >[...] In this he is gravely
> >offending me, as well as any other non-free packager, and the least
> >would be excuses for this, and retractation of the accusation.
> 
> Fine then, say that you are gravely offended and request an apology, 
> but do not start throwing accusations of illegal acts around. I do not 
> think you are going to take him to court, so I do not understand why 
> you call "slander" over the list.

Because my mastery of the subtilities of the english tongue is not so
good ?

> >But then, i am not a english native speaker, i may have misunderstood,
> >but still i believe the intent is there, that he (and all other remove
> >non-free defenders here) consider my work as non-free packager, as
> >inferior and not worthy of mention. [...]
> 
> No, I think he considers it wrong. I am not aware of him commenting on 
> technical aspects of your packaging.

Sure, he comes forth, and say that _my_ work is wrong. 

The problem is, that all his discussion about ethicalness is based on
some abstract non-free package, and does not take in consideration the
100 or so actual maintainers of non-free package, who don't really care
to be threated as unethically. 

Also, the aim of this whole thing is to discredit the people who
advocate that we should not drop non-free, and thus it is similar to an
under the belt kind of thing in a real-world election or something such.

I thus continue in the opinion that he is misbehaving and using
arguments that are slanderous to the non-free maintainers.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:19:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
> 
> Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.

He is accusing me to be non-ethical. Indirectly though but still.

That is a fact, or at least the impression that he is trying to convey,
and which i do not accept.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:45:57AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 
> I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
> I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with 
> calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions 
> unethical). I was free to select another word for this, like not 
> consequent or irrational which are very close in this case. I selected 
> the word unethical because I think, that acting on the most possible 
> high ethical level all the time is very important for Debian, since his 
> aim is very ethical.
> Anyway, I just can repeat, that each and every developer of Debian works 
> on the very high ethical level (regardless of the licence of his 
> package). Doing sometimes small unethical(in my opinion) actions does 
> not make anyone and Debian unethical.

Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.

You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either not modify or not
distribute is worse in any way than not getting access to said package.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >
> >On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> >
> >>Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
> >>>(because we were no longer able).
> >>
> >>
> >>we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
> >>GFDL like package for example).
> >
> >
> >I don't think I was clear enough. If it is ethical to share, then 
> >currently, we are sharing our non-free archive with some people, and 
> >that is an ethical act. If we maintain the status quo, then in the 
> >future we will share non-free with more people. Since we're assuming 
> >sharing is ethical, then that is a good.
> >
> >If we drop non-free, we will no longer be able to perform that good.
> 
> I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as 
> clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute 
> non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was 
> wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't 
> change the fact that by distributing non-free Debian act in the way 
> which lead to unethical situations. Dropping non-free itself will 
> decrease the amount of good, but it will decrease also the amount of 
> actions which lead to unethical situations.
> 
> The only solution I see, to get from the situation where the Debian is, 
> will be that Debian not just drops non-free, but will redirect efforts 
> and resources from distributing non-free to free packages support and 
> distribution.

Well, the problem with that premise, is that it will redirect the effort
from working on free _and_ non-free software, to the work needed to
maintain the non-free.org architecture and/or maintaining the non-free
packages outside of debian.

The reality is that all the non-ethical argument you give are not
against debian or its developers, but against the upstream author.

And notice that altough many non-free packages are quite ok (imagine a
licence of the kind "GPL but additional limitation that it can't be used
for mass murders or such"), there are others, and in particular the
binary-only ones, which are not only non-ethical, but also plain _evil_.

But again, this is not something we have to worry about, only upstream
is involved in this decision, and it has often been that by the
packaging and distributing of non-free packages by debian, the upstream
maintainer has been brought to free his source.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Raul Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

[This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
is not in reply to any other post.]

This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html

Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.

The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.

The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
contract, which is what I've tried to do here.

This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
that text as follows:

- -- 

I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
   

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:11:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

Please, post this as a separate and new thread asking for seconds, would
be much better not to be missed.

(Notice that the how to vote also considers starting a new thread as
polite, or some such wording.)

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Sven Luther]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
 area may be distributed in other ways.  For those who need to run
 software we do not distribute, free or non-free, we support worthy
 application binary interface standards and namespace management
 standards.  Additionally, we will work to find, package and support
 free alternatives to non-free software so people who use only free
 software can work with users of non-free software.

- - -- 

I second this proposal.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFADoZd2WTeT3CRQaQRAiJqAJ9+qAn4Vdrouph11LYWWsUiih5r9QCfQmk1
JLEXGorGpsvyblXTZ5AGauE=
=7w+y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey Spiridonov]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For 
example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is 
substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the 
same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of packaged BAZ, 
TAZ, and FROB, even if they aren't free.


Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that
is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is
possible to do at the fixed period of time?

There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
consequences of this action. It is not correct.

It is true, that distributing non-free is ethical and helps people. But
it is also true that it leads to increasing described unethical
situations. By maximizing amount of non-free packages we also maximize 
the amount of such situations. Icreasing amount of unethical situations

can not be good.

I will justify non-free distribution if there will be no way to act 
without increasing unethical situations. For example, if free software

will become illegal. It is not the case.

That really just leaves the question: Does the ethical action of being 
able to help some/most people by sharing non-free software outdo the 
unethical action of being unable to help some people, because the 
software is non-free? Or is the unethical action so bad that no amount 
of ethical actions can make up for it?


You probably want to address the question is the evil in unethical 
situations which happen because of distributing non-free can be outdone 
by the good produced by distribution free. I don't think it is easy to 
count even the amount of unethical situations which can happen in a 
limited period of time. We can count case #2, but case #1 will stay 
uncounted. The fact that it is difficult to count doesn't mean we should 
ignore it.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
> more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
> produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
> things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that
> is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is
> possible to do at the fixed period of time?

Why not?

Note that he's not defined what "good" is -- clearly, for different
definitions of "good" the result is different.  It's also clear that
different people have differing ideas of "good"  -- in fact, the same
person is likely to have different concepts of "good" in different
contexts.

I think you're concerned about users getting "locked in" to some software
that we can't support.  If that's the case, then for you "good" would
be some measure of how "locked in" users are.

> There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
> negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
> arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
> consequences of this action. It is not correct.

I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences.  I think we're quite
aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good
consequences against the bad consequences.

I think, however, that different people have different ways of looking at
things.  In my mind, this means that the right choice is to decentralize
decisions made against differing viewpoints.

-- 
Raul

thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

I've been thinking quite a bit about Andrew Suffield's statement
of the purpose of this upcoming ballot.
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00601.html

In particular, I've been thinking about what each of the major options on
that ballot could mean, if it should win the vote.  [Each of these are,
potentially, "answers the bloody question".]


Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html

I think this will require further ballots.  At the very least, he seems
to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's possible
that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for that
potential outcome).

Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.

Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.


 * * * *

My proposal [has not yet been introduced]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01551.html

I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few changes
should be necessary.  I've tried to capture as many good ideas as I could
recognize in this proposal, which hopefully will make it less likely
that we will need to update the social contract again for quite some time.


 * * * *

Default option:

If at least a quarter of the voters think that the default option
is better than any proposals to modify the social contract, nothing
will change.  In principle, people who objected will be willing to say
why they objected and, in principle, we can reach some consensus which
incorporates those objections.  This probably would not be easy.


 * * * *

Andrew's grammatical fixes proposal [has not yet been introduced]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html

It's not clear whether this proposal will be on this ballot or on some
other ballot.  If it winds up on the same ballot, in some respects,
this proposal is very similar to mine.  In fact, I adopted my proposed
changes to sections 2, 3 and 4 from a draft of this proposal.  Likewise,
Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues I've raised.

However, this proposal is also more ambiguous than mine in a number of
places (in sections 1 and 5), and its still largely based on the state of
software back in the mid-90s when the social contract was first drafted.

He makes this ambiguity about non-free rather explicit as he has drafted
it to appear on a separate ballot.  Which, of course, means that it
probably shouldn't be a potential outcome on the ballot.

The social contract's ambiguity about handling of non-free software is
what led to Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal.  So if this did somehow
wind up on the non-free ballot, there's a significant chance that we
might have to come back and address the remaining ambiguities.




Developers giving up in disgust.

With any of the above outcomes, it's possible for developers to quit
the project in disgust.  Some might give up because they feel they can
no longer get their jobs done.  Some might give up because we "can't
reach a satisfactory decision".  Etc.

Of course, quitting is everyone's right, but I'm hoping no one feels
the need to exercise that right.


-- 
Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 14:59:29 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html


I think this will require further ballots.  At the very least, he 
seems
to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's 
possible
that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for 
that

potential outcome).


The grammatical changes seem orthogonal. I think it is wrong to 
combine them with another issue, in the way your proposal does.



Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.


This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
loopholes in.



Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed 
documentation,

but I can't guarantee that that's all.


This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
meet DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes 
to does not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
operating system.



My proposal [has not yet been introduced]:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01551.html


I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
changes

should be necessary.  [...]


This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
claiming non-free meets some DFSG. I think you have misrepresented it. 
Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
many subtle variations on it without even a changelog. Further, it is 
not a proposal but an amendment to the remove non-free GR. As said 
above, I think it's wrong to combine wording and policy changes.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> > guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
> > the constitution.
> 
> This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
> guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
> loopholes in.

We currently do not require that everything go in main.

> > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed 
> > documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all.
> 
> This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
> meet DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes 
> to does not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
> operating system.

"GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed
docs removed from Debian's main dist".

"GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.

> > I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> > changes should be necessary.  [...]
> 
> This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
> claiming non-free meets some DFSG.

That's a claim, not a practice.

If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be packages
in non-free which that claim would require be removed.

To my knowledge there are no such packages.

> I think you have misrepresented it. 

Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.

I don't think there are any.

> Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
> many subtle variations on it without even a changelog.

Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.

You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, frankly,
I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to know
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still
available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in them.

> Further, it is not a proposal but an amendment to the remove non-free
> GR.

It's an amendment of a proposal, which mean it is a proposal.

> As said above, I think it's wrong to combine wording and policy changes.

You said they were orthogonal -- that's not really true.  Is there some
other reason you think it's wrong?

-- 
Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Michael Banck]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
> 
> I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
non-free issue?


Michael

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
> while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
> non-free issue?

There's several problems:

I can't get Andrew to talk to me about what he wants to accomplish.

A ballot which changes the social contract which is restricted from
changing the words the social contract uses is very limited in scope.
[In particular, it seems to prohibit fixing the kinds of problems I see
that need to be fixed.]

Writing a proposal to fix up the problems remaining after the upcoming
ballot changes the social contract doesn't really make sense right
now -- you can't do it right until after the ballot has been frozen.
[And it's even better if you wait until after the winning ballot option
has been choosen.]

Basically, meaning and wording are not orthogonal.

-- 
Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:

The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.


Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove 
non-free GR, surely?



Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract 
and

the constitution.


This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
loopholes 
in.


We currently do not require that everything go in main.


There is no other way for something to be part of the debian 
distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed list 
stands.



Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed > 
documentation, 
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
meet 
DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes to 
does 
not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
operating 
system.

"GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed
docs removed from Debian's main dist".

"GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.


Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace 
them.


I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> 
changes should be necessary.  [...]
This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
claiming 
non-free meets some DFSG.

That's a claim, not a practice.


So why is it in there?

If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be 
packages

in non-free which that claim would require be removed.

To my knowledge there are no such packages.


At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.


I think you have misrepresented it.


Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.

I don't think there are any.


I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current 
practice.


Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
many 
subtle variations on it without even a changelog.


Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.


The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it 
changes from the current version.


You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, 
frankly,


I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
seem to have acted upon it.


I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
know

what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still
available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in 
them.


Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at 
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:33:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove 
> non-free GR, surely?

That doesn't follow.

I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide variety
of reasons" class of issues.

>From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
phrased.

> > "GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
> > developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.
> 
> Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace 
> them.

However, the current social contract is ambiguous enough that that
interpretation could be understood as being what it intends.

> >>> I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> >>> > 
> >>> changes should be necessary.  [...]
> >> This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
> >> claiming 
> >> non-free meets some DFSG.
> > That's a claim, not a practice.
> 
> So why is it in there?

I already answered that:

I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.

> > If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be 
> > packages
> > in non-free which that claim would require be removed.
> > 
> > To my knowledge there are no such packages.
> 
> At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.

This isn't very likely.

Even if someone could, I think we'd have grounds for removing it from
non-free even under the current social contract.

> >> I think you have misrepresented it.
> > 
> > Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.
> > 
> > I don't think there are any.
> 
> I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current 
> practice.

So was I.

> >> Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
> >> many 
> >> subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
> > 
> > Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
> 
> The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it 
> changes from the current version.

I don't know what you're talking about, here.

Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?

> > You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, 
> > frankly,
> 
> I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
> seem to have acted upon it.

You're referring to
  "It would have been helpful to describe your changes."
in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01157.html?

I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple draft's
around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
that draft.

I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.

> > I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
> > know what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's
> > are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes
> > were made in them.
> 
> Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at 
> source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.

Oh, cute, sarcasm.

Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs again.

If what you want really is a changelog, well, I guess I'll write
a changelog.  This would be a matter of extracting change-description
comments from my earlier emails.  But I'm not going to do it this second
-- I've got some other things I need to deal with first.

-- 
Raul

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Raul Miller wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:

>

There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
consequences of this action. It is not correct.



I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences.  I think we're quite
aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good
consequences against the bad consequences.


Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
talking about.


--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
> describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
> talking about.

Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?

-- 
Raul

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide 
variety

of reasons" class of issues.


I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way 
with a single proposal. I think it tries to mislead people who only 
support it on one of these issues to support it in total. Of course, 
presenting this as the "keep non-free" amendment rather than the 
"different editorial changes" amendment means that such support comes 
from the more polarising debate.



From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
phrased.


For me, that does not seem true. You need to try to at least see 
others' point of view.


I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in 
the

social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.


Including claims that substantially change current positions does not 
do that.


Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
>> 
many >> subtle variations on it without even a changelog.

> Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.


The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what 
it 
changes from the current version.


I don't know what you're talking about, here.

Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?


I would like to see:
1. description of changes from the current social contract, with 
rationale;

2. description of changes from the proposal being amended;
3. description of changes from previous versions.

However, I only asked for the first of these previously. You did post 
one such rationale before, but the wording seems to have changed 
since.


You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, > 
frankly,
I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
seem to 
have acted upon it.

You're referring to
  "It would have been helpful to describe your changes."
in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01157.html?

I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple 
draft's

around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
that draft.


Why have you not continued that practice? It makes it very hard for 
new readers, or even just people returning after ignoring you for a 
while.



I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.


I'm not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I write.

I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
> know 
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's

are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes
were made in them.


Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do 
at 
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.


Oh, cute, sarcasm.


That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should 
look up the meaning of the word. Normally, I denote written sarcasm 
with the common marker "(!)" or the winker like so: ;-)



Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs 
again.


You admitted that you no longer make efforts to supply what you 
clearly understood previously, so it cannot have been that ambiguous 
when I wrote it the first time.


--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
> > addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide 
> > variety of reasons" class of issues.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way 
> with a single proposal.

The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons" issue.

Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the "remove non-free"
issue.

What does "addressed coherently" mean, given this state of things?

> I think it tries to mislead people who only support it on one of these
> issues to support it in total.

I do not think it tries to mislead people in any such way:

I'm being quite explicit about what my proposal is.

> Of course, presenting this as the "keep non-free" amendment rather than the 
> "different editorial changes" amendment means that such support comes 
> from the more polarising debate.

There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other "different editorial
changes" proposals.  In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe
you're aware of it.

> > From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
> > non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
> > phrased.
> 
> For me, that does not seem true. You need to try to at least see 
> others' point of view.

That's exactly what I've been trying.

If you have some post where you've expressed your point of view, that
you think I'm ignoring, please give me a url on it.  

Otherwise, I'm aware of nothing stopping you from expressing your
views now.

It may be that you have a point of view which I've not taken into account.
If I can recognize a substantial unhandled element in your POV, I'll
see what I can do about incorporating it -- though I might need to ask
further questions to gain more perspective.

But, note that I do not (can not) take every statement describing a
person's POV as a literal description of what needs to be in the Social
Contract.

> > I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in 
> > the social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
> 
> Including claims that substantially change current positions does not 
> do that.

You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do.

All you've identified is new words descrbing what we do, with hypothetical
situations that, if they represented what we do would be changed by
these new words.

New words -- which don't result in us doing anything different -- do
not seem, to me, to represent substantial changes.

Neither are wording changes that only change things which we are not
doing.

> > Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?
> 
> I would like to see:
> 1. description of changes from the current social contract, with 
> rationale;
> 2. description of changes from the proposal being amended;
> 3. description of changes from previous versions.
> 
> However, I only asked for the first of these previously. You did post 
> one such rationale before, but the wording seems to have changed 
> since.

Ok, I'll generate these afresh.  This will take a bit of time -- hopefully
I'll post them all by tomorrow, but "by tomorrow" is not a promise.

> > I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple 
> > draft's around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
> > of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
> > that draft.
> 
> Why have you not continued that practice? It makes it very hard for 
> new readers, or even just people returning after ignoring you for a 
> while.

I have continued the "at the top" practice.  I need to sit back and
reflect before I write up the full description.

> >> Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do 
> >> at source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
> > 
> > Oh, cute, sarcasm.
> 
> That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should 
> look up the meaning of the word.

It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone read
the previous proposal drafts for my change comments.  That your statement
is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of what
you wrote.

> > Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
> > efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
> > to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs 
> > again.
> 
> You admitted that you no longer make efforts to supply what you 
> clearly understood previously, so it cannot have been that ambiguous 
> when I wrote it the first time.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.

-- 
Raul

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:



Nitpick: on-line, not online


dictionary.com says both are acceptable.

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Raul Miller wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:

Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
talking about.



Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?


I described situation which contradicts human ethic when one is not
able to help because he agreed to what is written in non-free license.
Such situation is one of consequences of non-free distribution. I said
that people who distribute non-free instead of working on free do not 
take in account negative consequences of what they are doing.


You said that you are quite aware of the consequences. I asked you, what 
are this bad consequences which you balance against good consequences.


That is what you said:
> I think we're quite aware of the consequences, and that each of us
> balances the good consequences against the bad consequences.

Can you please describe this bad consequences? Are they same which I 
describe?

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Sven Luther wrote:

I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as 
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute 
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was 
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't 
change the fact that by distributing non-free Debian act in the way 
which lead to unethical situations. Dropping non-free itself will 
decrease the amount of good, but it will decrease also the amount of 
actions which lead to unethical situations.


The only solution I see, to get from the situation where the Debian is, 
will be that Debian not just drops non-free, but will redirect efforts 
and resources from distributing non-free to free packages support and 
distribution.



Well, the problem with that premise, is that it will redirect the effort
from working on free _and_ non-free software, to the work needed to
maintain the non-free.org architecture and/or maintaining the non-free
packages outside of debian.


I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting 
efforts and resources from non-free to free (that is what I propose) 
will redirect them on something else.


I do not understand you here. You probably mean that you will do 
something else because distributing non-free is very important for

you. But I was talking about you. I mean you will redirect your
efforts as well as other Debian developers.


And notice that altough many non-free packages are quite ok (imagine a
licence of the kind "GPL but additional limitation that it can't be used
for mass murders or such"), there are others, and in particular the
binary-only ones, which are not only non-ethical, but also plain _evil_.


I do not talk for a moment about the whole non-free. Currently I am 
talking about 2 clear cases: (1) packages with sources without permition 
to distribute modified versions and (2)packages without sources.


I think that software or any other thing can not be evil without 
associated human action.


--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Sven Luther wrote:


Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.


Thanks.


You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either not modify or not
distribute is worse in any way than not getting access to said package.


This is not complete proposal. I also mention redirection of efforts and 
resources.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Hamish Moffatt]

I second this proposal.

Hamish

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.
> 
> I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
> this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
> yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
> want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
> A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.
> 
> The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
> it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
> been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
> for non-free software.
> 
> The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
> Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
> about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
> but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
> phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
> from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
> concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
> contract, which is what I've tried to do here.
> 
> This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
> striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
> that text as follows:
> 
> - -- 
> 
> I propose the following resolution:
> 
> We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
> by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
> will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
> will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
> of the original social contract.
> 
> Here's the replacement for the social contract:
> 
> 
> Debian's Social Contract
> 
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
> we offer to the free software community.
>  
>   
>  
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>  
>   1. Debian will remain 100% free software
> 
>  Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
>  entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
>  software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
>  if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
>  and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
>  never make the system depend on non-free software.
> 
>   2. We will give back to the free software community
> 
>  When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
>  them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>  We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
>  widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
>  as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
>  authors of works included in our system.
> 
>   3. We will not hide problems
> 
>  We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
>  at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
>  visible to others.
> 
>   4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 
>  We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
>  community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
>  will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
>  kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
>  works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
>  charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
>  others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
>  other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
>  we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
>  no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
> 
>   5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
>  the use of software which does not conform to t

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Anthony Towns wrote:


Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.


I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.


That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
in the most effective way.


And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?


Please help me get my wireless access points configured; the only
software I have for them is Windows only and doesn't seem to work,
and I can't seem to make them use the same ESSID.


Sorry, can't help you. :(


I don't see why you'd feel bad in any way at having to say "sorry, can't
help you" to requests like that. If you actually do, I think you should
seriously consider changing your outlook.


I want, please help me. This will probably make my life much more
happier. Can you please tell me, do you think there are some bad 
consequences from distributing non-free? Is everything completely

O.K. with this from your point of view?

What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
to value them more than non-free licenses?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
> 
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)

Oxford English Dictionary seems to prefer "online", but provides both.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Towards a transition plan to nonfree.org (was Re: summary of software licenses in non-free)

[Michael Banck]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
> > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
> > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
> > > a whole lot of boring make work to reimplement various bits of Debian
> > > infrastructure? 
> > I don't think you need to reimplement Debian infrastructure in order to
> > duplicate it, just to adjust it. Of course, you're more expert than me
> > to comment on this.
> 
> Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
> to get new machines, 

Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
more than one machine? If we assume that nonfree.org will get mirrored,
most of the load should be up to whatever archive maintenance system
will be used, plus the BTS.

For a couple of hundred packages, I'd imagine any recent box should
suffice. Again, your input as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ftp-master on this
subject would quite valuable. I'll try to get some figures about
download volumes from a mirror admin, too, though, if nobody beats me to
it.

> and set it all up, and maintain it, and patch the systems, and track
> upstream and all that other stuff. There's a lot of effort there, and
> it's pretty boring, and given it's just for non-free stuff, it's
> pretty low value -- certainly compared to doing the same work for the
> main archive.

True. That said, I'd like to stress the point again that neither I nor
anybody else expects the current Debian infrastructure maintainers to
step forward and setup/maintain nonfree.org. But a bit of advice to
whoever might do it would be very welcome I guess.

> > I wouldn't consider
> > outsourcing less than 200 packages (forgot the exact number) a 'fork'.
> > The requirements for infrastructure and maintenance are considerably
> > lower than for a full-blown fork of Debian, IMHO.
> 
> I'm not really convinced. If you're going to have it work as well
> as Debian, you need to have an archive and a bug tracking system and
> probably some mailing lists. 

Let's break this down:

1. Mailing Lists
I guess setting up mailing-lists is fairly easy these days, plus I don't
think a lot would be needed.

2. Bug Tracking System
The BTS is a different story. It would be gratis if a gforge-like
service would be used, but I guess gforge is not really suited for this
kind of downstream stuff (haven't talked to the alioth admins about this
yet, though). So the question is: How much work would setting up debbugs
for an independent archive be? I'd say it would be quite a bit of work,
but I think nothing unsurmountable.

3. Package Archive and its Maintenance
> If you're going to have it be centralised, as opposed to lots of
> independent apt sources, you need to have signed uploads, and some way
> of verifying the people who send you keys are who they say they are,
> and, ideally, aren't grossly incompetent. I don't think any of the
> non-Debian apt repositories satisfy these requirements, 

I agree that signed uploads are a requirement for this, as is a verfied
developer base. The policy of who will be in the nonfree.org keyring is
of course left to its maintainer, but I guess DDs and perhaps people
which passed the identification test in n-m are alright. One will have
to wait and see whether the nonfree.org developers will be a subset of
the current DDs or will rather be a different set of people mostly.

Furthermore, I believe that dak is overkill for nonfree's size. If
somebody steps forward to set it up and maintain it on nonfree.org, that
would be cool of course, but in the absence of an volunteer, I don't
think it's really required to have katie for that.

Now, one system which provides centralized apt-sources and signed
uploads is currently used for mentors.d.n. I've talked to one of the
maintainers a while ago and he said it should be possible to use that. I
haven't spoken to the main developer yet, though, so I'm not sure about
the availabilty of it (it might be non-free, dunno :)

4. Package Tracking
Oh, and I've talked to Raphael Hertzog about PTS. He said it should be
possible to put the PTS on a non-official Debian archive without too
much work.

That's it so far.


Michael

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Greg Norris]

I second this proposal.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.
> 
> I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
> this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
> yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
> want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
> A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.
> 
> The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
> it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
> been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
> for non-free software.
> 
> The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
> Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
> about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
> but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
> phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
> from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
> concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
> contract, which is what I've tried to do here.
> 
> This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
> striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
> that text as follows:
> 
> - -- 
> 
> I propose the following resolution:
> 
> We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
> by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
> will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
> will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
> of the original social contract.
> 
> Here's the replacement for the social contract:
> 
> 
> Debian's Social Contract
> 
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
> we offer to the free software community.
>  
>   
>  
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>  
>   1. Debian will remain 100% free software
> 
>  Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
>  entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
>  software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
>  if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
>  and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
>  never make the system depend on non-free software.
> 
>   2. We will give back to the free software community
> 
>  When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
>  them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>  We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
>  widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
>  as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
>  authors of works included in our system.
> 
>   3. We will not hide problems
> 
>  We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
>  at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
>  visible to others.
> 
>   4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 
>  We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
>  community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
>  will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
>  kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
>  works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
>  charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
>  others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
>  other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
>  we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
>  no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
> 
>   5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
>  the use of software which does not conform to the Debia

Re: non-free and users?

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.

If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.

> >That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
> >to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
> >in the most effective way.
> And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?

No, I'm not sure there's nothing wrong with it, but I certainly don't
think there's anything wrong with it. If Debian were the one allowing
people to create non-free software -- ie, was behind copyright law itself
-- I might be concerned, but as it is we have to treat copyright law
as a given, and work out the best things we can do in that context. And
as I've said elsewhere, I don't think distributing non-free imposes any
significant costs, and does provide some significant benefits.

> What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
> to value them more than non-free licenses?

Huh? Isn't that obvious?

The question isn't why should we value these licenses more, the question
is whether, given the choice, there's any software we should choose not
to distribute.

For comparison, I'd consider the GPL and BSD licenses far more valuable
than the Artistic license; and while that's a reason for me to *prefer*
software licensed under the GPL or BSD license, it's not a reason to
avoid software under the Artistic license outright.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

   Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
> >>talking about.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:38:28PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I described situation which contradicts human ethic when one is not
> able to help because he agreed to what is written in non-free license.

Note: I feel you've not provided an adequate basis for this statement.
It appears that the issue you are concerned about is not "when one is
not able to help" but that instead you are concerned about "written in
non-free license".

Otherwise, you would would also be concerned about "when one is not
able to help because Debian would not distribute software that doesn't
satisfy every guideline of DFSG."

> Such situation is one of consequences of non-free distribution. I said
> that people who distribute non-free instead of working on free do not 
> take in account negative consequences of what they are doing.

See above -- you're not taking into account negative consequences of
"Debian would not distribute".

However, I do believe I'm taking into account "negative consequences of
distributing non-free".  The big problem with distributing non-free is
that this might obscure free alternatives.  I attempt to address this
in part 5 of my proposed rewrite of the social contract where it says:
"Additionally, we will work to find, package and support free alternatives
to non-free software ..."

This, combined with some of the other statements in that proposal
("...we will never make the system depend on non-free software.",
"Our priorities are our users and free software" and "The software in
"non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our guidelines", and so on)
make it very clear that non-free software is not a replacement for free
software, that we're providing software at a lower grade of freedom only
to address cases where that's the best we can do to help our users.

> You said that you are quite aware of the consequences. I asked you, what 
> are this bad consequences which you balance against good consequences.

Have you read my proposed social contract?  Did you notice the above
provisions?  If so, why do you feel the need to ask this question?

>  > That is what you said:
>  > I think we're quite aware of the consequences, and that each of us
>  > balances the good consequences against the bad consequences.
> 
> Can you please describe this bad consequences? Are they same which I 
> describe?

The potential bad consequences are that Debian might have to stop
distributing or supporting the package [perhaps partially, perhaps
completely], and that users might not have any other alternatives.

-- 
Raul

bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen!

[jonesserena]

Von: Fr. Serena Jones
 
Bitte bemühen Sie sich es für Kinder Gottes zu nutzen
 
Ich bin die obengenannte Person aus Kuwait.Ich bin mit Dr. Harry Jones, der neun Jahre 
lang für die Kuwaitsche Botschaft gearbeitet hatte, bevor er in 2002 verstarb, 
verheiratet.
Wir waren elf Jahre verheiratet, ohne Kinder. Er erlag einer kurzen Krankheit, die nur 
vier Tage dauerte. Befor er starb, wurden wir als Christen wiedergeboren. Nach seinem 
Tod beschloß ich nicht wieder zu heiraten und keine Kinder außerhalb der Ehe zu 
bekommen, weil die Bibel dagegen ist.
Als mein Ehemann noch am Leben war, hat er die Summe von 8,6 Millionen U.S. Dollar bei 
einer Finanzen/Sicherheit Gesellschaft in Amsterdam/Holland hinterlegt. Im Augenblick 
befindet sich das Geld immer noch da.
Vor kurzem erfuhr ich von meinem Arzt, dass ich die nächsten drei Monate nich 
durchhalten werde, wegen einer Krebskrankheit. 
Was mich am meisten stört ist meine schlagartige Krankheit.
Meinen Zustand kennend, beschloß ich diesen Fonds einer Kirche, oder noch besser, 
einem Christen, der das Geld wie ich es hier beschreibe nutzen wird, zu spenden.
Ich wünsche mir eine Kirche, die diesen Fonds nutzen wird um Kirchen , Weisenhäuser 
und Witwen, die das Wort Gottes verbreiten, zu unterstützen, und sicherstellt, dass 
das Haus Gottes aufrechterhalten wird. Die Bibel gibt uns zu verstehen,dass die Hand 
die gibt
gesegnet ist.

Ich habe mich dazu entschieden weil ich keine Kinder habe, die das Geld erben könnten, 
und die Verwandten meines Ehemannes keine Christen sind und ich möchte nicht, dass das 
hart verdiente Geld meines Mannes von Ungläubigen missbraucht wird. Ich möchte nicht, 
dass dieses Geld auf sündhafter Weise benutzt wird. Deshalb kamm ich zu diesem 
gewagten Entschluß.

Ich habe keine Angst vor dem Tod, weil ich weiß wohin ich gehe, Ich werde im Schoß 
Gottes sein.Exodus 14VS14 sagt, dass der Herr für mein Recht kämpfen wird und  dass 
ich meinen Frieden bewahren soll.

Ich brauche keine telefonische Kommunikation wegen meiner Gesundheit uns weil die 
Verwandten meines Mannes immer bei mir sind.

Ich möchte nicht, dass sie von dieser Entwicklung erfahren. Mit Gott ist alles möglich.

So bald ich Ihre Antwort bekomme werde ich Sie mit der Finanzen/Sicherheit 
Gesellschaft in Amsterdam/Holland in Verbindung setzen. Ich werde auch eine Vollmacht 
für Sie als Begünstigter ausstellen.

Ich möchte, dass Sie und die Kirche immer für mich beten, weil der Herr mein Hirte ist.

Ich bin glücklich das Leben eines würdigem Christens gelebt zu haben. Wenn man Gott 
dienen will muss das im Geiste und Wahrheit sein.

Bitte beten Sie Ihr ganzes Leben.

Jede Verspätung Ihrer Antwort wird mich veranlassen eine Kirche, oder einen Christen, 
für den selben Zweck zu suchen.

Bitte versichern Sie mich, dass Sie wie beschrieben handeln werden. Ich hoffe von 
Ihnen zu hören. email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Raul Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html

Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.

The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.

The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
contract, which is what I've tried to do here.

This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
that text as follows:

- -- 

I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
 area may be distributed in other ways.  For those who need to run
 software we do not distribute, free o

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 08:30:08PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 14:11, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >You are trying to convey the impression that my work as a non-free
> >maintainer either is unethical or makes debian behaves unethically,
> >while this is patently false. This is slander and defamation.
> 
> Ethics is a matter of opinion, not fact, and thus can't be "patently 
> false." Neither can it be defamation or slander.

All the same, i feel insulted by it, and expect apologize, and that he
stops making such untrue (iof not idiotic) claims, with only a mascerade
of argumentation.

Also, again, the work i do, be it on free packages or the one non-free
package i maintain is a gift of my time and work to the rest of the
world.

And anyone claiming that this is non-ethical or leads to non-ethical
stuff has sever ethical problems itself. 

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 11:02:41PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-01-19 18:44:23 + Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
> >On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 03:53:31PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >>
> >>First, it was offered as comment. Second, justification for why he 
> >>regards 
> >>it as unethical was given. Finally, I don't think there was
> >
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
> 
> Indeed, it could be, but I think the long thread shows that he really 
> does regard it as unethical, in his opinion. Ultimately, most ethics 
> are a matter of opinion and not codified.

Sure, and he really is insulting me and all my fellow non-free
maintainer by that. I think he don't realize this, which is why i
stepped forth in this.

> >>malice against you personally, or any other developer, as he took
> >Well, slander without intentions is still slander.
> 
> At least in UK law, slander is a type of "malicious falsehood", so 
> slander without malice cannot be.

Well, whatever, i am no english native speaker, so please excuse me.

> >[...] In this he is gravely
> >offending me, as well as any other non-free packager, and the least
> >would be excuses for this, and retractation of the accusation.
> 
> Fine then, say that you are gravely offended and request an apology, 
> but do not start throwing accusations of illegal acts around. I do not 
> think you are going to take him to court, so I do not understand why 
> you call "slander" over the list.

Because my mastery of the subtilities of the english tongue is not so
good ?

> >But then, i am not a english native speaker, i may have misunderstood,
> >but still i believe the intent is there, that he (and all other remove
> >non-free defenders here) consider my work as non-free packager, as
> >inferior and not worthy of mention. [...]
> 
> No, I think he considers it wrong. I am not aware of him commenting on 
> technical aspects of your packaging.

Sure, he comes forth, and say that _my_ work is wrong. 

The problem is, that all his discussion about ethicalness is based on
some abstract non-free package, and does not take in consideration the
100 or so actual maintainers of non-free package, who don't really care
to be threated as unethically. 

Also, the aim of this whole thing is to discredit the people who
advocate that we should not drop non-free, and thus it is similar to an
under the belt kind of thing in a real-world election or something such.

I thus continue in the opinion that he is misbehaving and using
arguments that are slanderous to the non-free maintainers.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 07:19:50PM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> 
> On Jan 19, 2004, at 13:44, Sven Luther wrote:
> 
> >Well, slander with argumentation is still slander.
> 
> Slander involves statements of false facts, not opinions.

He is accusing me to be non-ethical. Indirectly though but still.

That is a fact, or at least the impression that he is trying to convey,
and which i do not accept.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:45:57AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> 
> I sincerely apologize for those who think, that my opinion is offending.
> I understand that my English is far from perfect and I can be wrong with 
> calling what is happening unethical (yes, I call *some* actions 
> unethical). I was free to select another word for this, like not 
> consequent or irrational which are very close in this case. I selected 
> the word unethical because I think, that acting on the most possible 
> high ethical level all the time is very important for Debian, since his 
> aim is very ethical.
> Anyway, I just can repeat, that each and every developer of Debian works 
> on the very high ethical level (regardless of the licence of his 
> package). Doing sometimes small unethical(in my opinion) actions does 
> not make anyone and Debian unethical.

Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.

You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either not modify or not
distribute is worse in any way than not getting access to said package.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sven Luther]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 10:25:55AM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> >
> >On Jan 19, 2004, at 08:59, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> >
> >>Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>There is no harm per se, however, there is the good we did not do
> >>>(because we were no longer able).
> >>
> >>
> >>we were never able to do it. Or we are able to do it (in case of a
> >>GFDL like package for example).
> >
> >
> >I don't think I was clear enough. If it is ethical to share, then 
> >currently, we are sharing our non-free archive with some people, and 
> >that is an ethical act. If we maintain the status quo, then in the 
> >future we will share non-free with more people. Since we're assuming 
> >sharing is ethical, then that is a good.
> >
> >If we drop non-free, we will no longer be able to perform that good.
> 
> I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as 
> clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute 
> non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was 
> wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't 
> change the fact that by distributing non-free Debian act in the way 
> which lead to unethical situations. Dropping non-free itself will 
> decrease the amount of good, but it will decrease also the amount of 
> actions which lead to unethical situations.
> 
> The only solution I see, to get from the situation where the Debian is, 
> will be that Debian not just drops non-free, but will redirect efforts 
> and resources from distributing non-free to free packages support and 
> distribution.

Well, the problem with that premise, is that it will redirect the effort
from working on free _and_ non-free software, to the work needed to
maintain the non-free.org architecture and/or maintaining the non-free
packages outside of debian.

The reality is that all the non-ethical argument you give are not
against debian or its developers, but against the upstream author.

And notice that altough many non-free packages are quite ok (imagine a
licence of the kind "GPL but additional limitation that it can't be used
for mass murders or such"), there are others, and in particular the
binary-only ones, which are not only non-ethical, but also plain _evil_.

But again, this is not something we have to worry about, only upstream
is involved in this decision, and it has often been that by the
packaging and distributing of non-free packages by debian, the upstream
maintainer has been brought to free his source.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Raul Miller]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

[This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
is not in reply to any other post.]

This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html

Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.

The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.

The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
contract, which is what I've tried to do here.

This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
that text as follows:

- -- 

I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
   

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:11:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.

Please, post this as a separate and new thread asking for seconds, would
be much better not to be missed.

(Notice that the how to vote also considers starting a new thread as
polite, or some such wording.)

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Sven Luther]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


I propose the following resolution:

We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
of the original social contract.

Here's the replacement for the social contract:


Debian's Social Contract

The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
we offer to the free software community.
 
  
 
"Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
 
  1. Debian will remain 100% free software

 Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
 entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
 software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
 if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
 and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
 never make the system depend on non-free software.

  2. We will give back to the free software community

 When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
 them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
 We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
 widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
 as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
 authors of works included in our system.

  3. We will not hide problems

 We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
 at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
 visible to others.

  4. Our priorities are our users and free software

 We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
 community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
 will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
 kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
 works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
 charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
 others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
 other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
 we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
 no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.

  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

 We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
 the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
 Software Guidelines.  In order to accommodate these users, we have
 created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.
 The software in "non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our
 guidelines and we do not guarantee all software in the non-free
 area may be distributed in other ways.  For those who need to run
 software we do not distribute, free or non-free, we support worthy
 application binary interface standards and namespace management
 standards.  Additionally, we will work to find, package and support
 free alternatives to non-free software so people who use only free
 software can work with users of non-free software.

- - -- 

I second this proposal.

Friendly,

Sven Luther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFADoZd2WTeT3CRQaQRAiJqAJ9+qAn4Vdrouph11LYWWsUiih5r9QCfQmk1
JLEXGorGpsvyblXTZ5AGauE=
=7w+y
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey Spiridonov]

Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

Even ignoring that, this argument does have a slight problem. For 
example, the amount of work to replace FOO with a free alternative is 
substantially more than the amount of work to package FOO. So, in the 
same amount of time it took us to rewrite FOO, we could of packaged BAZ, 
TAZ, and FROB, even if they aren't free.
Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that
is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is
possible to do at the fixed period of time?
There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
consequences of this action. It is not correct.
It is true, that distributing non-free is ethical and helps people. But
it is also true that it leads to increasing described unethical
situations. By maximizing amount of non-free packages we also maximize 
the amount of such situations. Icreasing amount of unethical situations
can not be good.

I will justify non-free distribution if there will be no way to act 
without increasing unethical situations. For example, if free software
will become illegal. It is not the case.

That really just leaves the question: Does the ethical action of being 
able to help some/most people by sharing non-free software outdo the 
unethical action of being unable to help some people, because the 
software is non-free? Or is the unethical action so bad that no amount 
of ethical actions can make up for it?
You probably want to address the question is the evil in unethical 
situations which happen because of distributing non-free can be outdone 
by the good produced by distribution free. I don't think it is easy to 
count even the amount of unethical situations which can happen in a 
limited period of time. We can count case #2, but case #1 will stay 
uncounted. The fact that it is difficult to count doesn't mean we should 
ignore it.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
> Did I understand you correctly? You are saying we can help people
> more efficient if we will do the job which requieres less efforts but
> produce the same amount of good? You mean that we can do more good
> things with less efforts by packaging and distributing non-free, that
> is why it is more efficient? Your idea is to maximize the good which is
> possible to do at the fixed period of time?

Why not?

Note that he's not defined what "good" is -- clearly, for different
definitions of "good" the result is different.  It's also clear that
different people have differing ideas of "good"  -- in fact, the same
person is likely to have different concepts of "good" in different
contexts.

I think you're concerned about users getting "locked in" to some software
that we can't support.  If that's the case, then for you "good" would
be some measure of how "locked in" users are.

> There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
> negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
> arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
> consequences of this action. It is not correct.

I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences.  I think we're quite
aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good
consequences against the bad consequences.

I think, however, that different people have different ways of looking at
things.  In my mind, this means that the right choice is to decentralize
decisions made against differing viewpoints.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

I've been thinking quite a bit about Andrew Suffield's statement
of the purpose of this upcoming ballot.
  http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg00601.html

In particular, I've been thinking about what each of the major options on
that ballot could mean, if it should win the vote.  [Each of these are,
potentially, "answers the bloody question".]


Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html

I think this will require further ballots.  At the very least, he seems
to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's possible
that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for that
potential outcome).

Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.

Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.


 * * * *

My proposal [has not yet been introduced]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01551.html

I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few changes
should be necessary.  I've tried to capture as many good ideas as I could
recognize in this proposal, which hopefully will make it less likely
that we will need to update the social contract again for quite some time.


 * * * *

Default option:

If at least a quarter of the voters think that the default option
is better than any proposals to modify the social contract, nothing
will change.  In principle, people who objected will be willing to say
why they objected and, in principle, we can reach some consensus which
incorporates those objections.  This probably would not be easy.


 * * * *

Andrew's grammatical fixes proposal [has not yet been introduced]:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html

It's not clear whether this proposal will be on this ballot or on some
other ballot.  If it winds up on the same ballot, in some respects,
this proposal is very similar to mine.  In fact, I adopted my proposed
changes to sections 2, 3 and 4 from a draft of this proposal.  Likewise,
Andrew has adopted some of his proposal from issues I've raised.

However, this proposal is also more ambiguous than mine in a number of
places (in sections 1 and 5), and its still largely based on the state of
software back in the mid-90s when the social contract was first drafted.

He makes this ambiguity about non-free rather explicit as he has drafted
it to appear on a separate ballot.  Which, of course, means that it
probably shouldn't be a potential outcome on the ballot.

The social contract's ambiguity about handling of non-free software is
what led to Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal.  So if this did somehow
wind up on the non-free ballot, there's a significant chance that we
might have to come back and address the remaining ambiguities.




Developers giving up in disgust.

With any of the above outcomes, it's possible for developers to quit
the project in disgust.  Some might give up because they feel they can
no longer get their jobs done.  Some might give up because we "can't
reach a satisfactory decision".  Etc.

Of course, quitting is everyone's right, but I'm hoping no one feels
the need to exercise that right.


-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 14:59:29 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html

I think this will require further ballots.  At the very least, he 
seems
to intend a separate ballot for grammatical changes (though it's 
possible
that that proposal will be included on this ballot -- see below for 
that
potential outcome).
The grammatical changes seem orthogonal. I think it is wrong to 
combine them with another issue, in the way your proposal does.

Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
the constitution.
This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
loopholes in.

Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed 
documentation,
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
meet DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes 
to does not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
operating system.

My proposal [has not yet been introduced]:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01551.html

I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
changes
should be necessary.  [...]
This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
claiming non-free meets some DFSG. I think you have misrepresented it. 
Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
many subtle variations on it without even a changelog. Further, it is 
not a proposal but an amendment to the remove non-free GR. As said 
above, I think it's wrong to combine wording and policy changes.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

> > Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
> > "Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
> > guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract and
> > the constitution.
> 
> This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
> guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
> loopholes in.

We currently do not require that everything go in main.

> > Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
> > all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
> > position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed 
> > documentation, but I can't guarantee that that's all.
> 
> This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
> meet DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes 
> to does not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
> operating system.

"GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed
docs removed from Debian's main dist".

"GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.

> > I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> > changes should be necessary.  [...]
> 
> This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
> claiming non-free meets some DFSG.

That's a claim, not a practice.

If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be packages
in non-free which that claim would require be removed.

To my knowledge there are no such packages.

> I think you have misrepresented it. 

Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.

I don't think there are any.

> Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
> many subtle variations on it without even a changelog.

Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.

You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, frankly,
I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to know
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still
available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in them.

> Further, it is not a proposal but an amendment to the remove non-free
> GR.

It's an amendment of a proposal, which mean it is a proposal.

> As said above, I think it's wrong to combine wording and policy changes.

You said they were orthogonal -- that's not really true.  Is there some
other reason you think it's wrong?

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Michael Banck]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
> 
> I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
non-free issue?


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:21:57AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:28:13PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> So why don't you two work together on a grammatical changes proposal,
> while each of you subsequently presents a proposal to tackle the
> non-free issue?

There's several problems:

I can't get Andrew to talk to me about what he wants to accomplish.

A ballot which changes the social contract which is restricted from
changing the words the social contract uses is very limited in scope.
[In particular, it seems to prohibit fixing the kinds of problems I see
that need to be fixed.]

Writing a proposal to fix up the problems remaining after the upcoming
ballot changes the social contract doesn't really make sense right
now -- you can't do it right until after the ballot has been frozen.
[And it's even better if you wait until after the winning ballot option
has been choosen.]

Basically, meaning and wording are not orthogonal.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.
I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.
Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove 
non-free GR, surely?

Also, we should probably update the DFSG to indicate that they are
"Debian's Free Software Requirements", rather than merely being
guidelines.  This would also require updating the social contract 
and
the constitution.
This seems unneccessary. We require all software in main to meet the 
guidelines, but they are not a closed list that people may seek 
loopholes 
in.
We currently do not require that everything go in main.
There is no other way for something to be part of the debian 
distribution. Regardless, the point that DFSG are not a closed list 
stands.

Finally, note that software currently in main which does not satisfy
all of our guidelines will get dropped -- there will be no "fallback
position".  In particular, I'm thinking of GFDL licensed > 
documentation, 
but I can't guarantee that that's all.
This is not a change. Documentation under the current GFDL does not 
meet 
DFSG and must be removed from debian. The location where it goes to 
does 
not seem to have direct relevance to producing a free software 
operating 
system.
"GFDL licensed docs removed from Debian" really means "GFDL licensed
docs removed from Debian's main dist".
"GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.
Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace 
them.

I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> 
changes should be necessary.  [...]
This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
claiming 
non-free meets some DFSG.
That's a claim, not a practice.
So why is it in there?

If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be 
packages
in non-free which that claim would require be removed.

To my knowledge there are no such packages.
At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.

I think you have misrepresented it.
Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.

I don't think there are any.
I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current 
practice.

Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
many 
subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it 
changes from the current version.

You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, 
frankly,
I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
seem to have acted upon it.

I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
know
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's are still
available and all the drafts have notes on what changes were made in 
them.
Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at 
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 04:07:53PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> The grammatical changes seem orthogonal.

On 2004-01-21 16:21:57 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I disagree: if Andrew's grammatical changes proposal passes, it would
> > wipe out a number of the changes I'm proposing.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:33:35PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> Then your amendment should be to that proposal rather than the remove 
> non-free GR, surely?

That doesn't follow.

I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide variety
of reasons" class of issues.

>From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
phrased.

> > "GFDL removed from Debian" doesn't mean, for example, that Debian
> > developers should ignore GFDL licensed docs.
> 
> Indeed it does not. I think it means we should work to free or replace 
> them.

However, the current social contract is ambiguous enough that that
interpretation could be understood as being what it intends.

> >>> I've tried to capture our current practice in this proposal -- few 
> >>> > 
> >>> changes should be necessary.  [...]
> >> This tries to change our current practice in some ways, such as 
> >> claiming 
> >> non-free meets some DFSG.
> > That's a claim, not a practice.
> 
> So why is it in there?

I already answered that:

I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.

> > If my proposal were changing existing practice, there would be 
> > packages
> > in non-free which that claim would require be removed.
> > 
> > To my knowledge there are no such packages.
> 
> At present. Maybe someone can present a pathological case.

This isn't very likely.

Even if someone could, I think we'd have grounds for removing it from
non-free even under the current social contract.

> >> I think you have misrepresented it.
> > 
> > Feel free to identify the packages which I would remove from non-free.
> > 
> > I don't think there are any.
> 
> I was referring to your assertion that the amendment reflects current 
> practice.

So was I.

> >> Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
> >> many 
> >> subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
> > 
> > Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
> 
> The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what it 
> changes from the current version.

I don't know what you're talking about, here.

Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?

> > You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, 
> > frankly,
> 
> I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
> seem to have acted upon it.

You're referring to
  "It would have been helpful to describe your changes."
in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01157.html?

I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple draft's
around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
that draft.

I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.

> > I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
> > know what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's
> > are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes
> > were made in them.
> 
> Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do at 
> source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.

Oh, cute, sarcasm.

Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs again.

If what you want really is a changelog, well, I guess I'll write
a changelog.  This would be a matter of extracting change-description
comments from my earlier emails.  But I'm not going to do it this second
-- I've got some other things I need to deal with first.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 03:24:26PM +0100, Sergey Spiridonov wrote:
>
There is nothing bad with this idea until we do not take in account
negative consequences of what we are doing. The problem with mostly all
arguments which justify non-free distribution is that they ignore
consequences of this action. It is not correct.


I disagree that we're ignoring the consequences.  I think we're quite
aware of the consequences, and that each of us balances the good
consequences against the bad consequences.
Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
talking about.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
> describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
> talking about.

Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[MJ Ray]

On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide 
variety
of reasons" class of issues.
I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way 
with a single proposal. I think it tries to mislead people who only 
support it on one of these issues to support it in total. Of course, 
presenting this as the "keep non-free" amendment rather than the 
"different editorial changes" amendment means that such support comes 
from the more polarising debate.

From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
phrased.
For me, that does not seem true. You need to try to at least see 
others' point of view.

I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in 
the
social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
Including claims that substantially change current positions does not 
do that.

Despite a request that you describe the changes, you have reposted 
>> 
many >> subtle variations on it without even a changelog.
> Each proposal has indicated the changes from the previous version.
The linked version did not seem to. I am equally interested in what 
it 
changes from the current version.
I don't know what you're talking about, here.

Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?
I would like to see:
1. description of changes from the current social contract, with 
rationale;
2. description of changes from the proposal being amended;
3. description of changes from previous versions.

However, I only asked for the first of these previously. You did post 
one such rationale before, but the wording seems to have changed 
since.

You're the first person [just now] to ask for a changelog -- and, > 
frankly,
I asked you to do so on 11th January. You agreed there, but do not 
seem to 
have acted upon it.
You're referring to
  "It would have been helpful to describe your changes."
in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01157.html?
I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple 
draft's
around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
that draft.
Why have you not continued that practice? It makes it very hard for 
new readers, or even just people returning after ignoring you for a 
while.

I'm not sure if you're extremely difficult to please or if you're just
ignoring what I wrote.
I'm not sure if you're deliberately misinterpreting what I write.

I don't see that it's all that significant.  If you really want to 
> know 
what changes happened in any previous draft, all the draft's
are still available and all the drafts have notes on what changes
were made in them.
Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do 
at 
source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
Oh, cute, sarcasm.
That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should 
look up the meaning of the word. Normally, I denote written sarcasm 
with the common marker "(!)" or the winker like so: ;-)

Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs 
again.
You admitted that you no longer make efforts to supply what you 
clearly understood previously, so it cannot have been that ambiguous 
when I wrote it the first time.

--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot

[Raul Miller]

On 2004-01-21 17:56:52 + Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am addressing the "remove non-free" issue.  More generally, I'm
> > addressing "people have criticised the social contract for a wide 
> > variety of reasons" class of issues.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:04:36PM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> I do not think that you can address these two issues in a coherent way 
> with a single proposal.

The "remove non-free" issue is a specific instance of the "people have
criticised the social contract for a wide variety of reasons" issue.

Moreover, there are a wide variety of reasons behind the "remove non-free"
issue.

What does "addressed coherently" mean, given this state of things?

> I think it tries to mislead people who only support it on one of these
> issues to support it in total.

I do not think it tries to mislead people in any such way:

I'm being quite explicit about what my proposal is.

> Of course, presenting this as the "keep non-free" amendment rather than the 
> "different editorial changes" amendment means that such support comes 
> from the more polarising debate.

There's nothing preventing any of a variety of other "different editorial
changes" proposals.  In fact, Andrew has proposed one, and I believe
you're aware of it.

> > From my point of view, the only single unifying issue behind "remove
> > non-free" is the social contract, and some shortcomings in how it's
> > phrased.
> 
> For me, that does not seem true. You need to try to at least see 
> others' point of view.

That's exactly what I've been trying.

If you have some post where you've expressed your point of view, that
you think I'm ignoring, please give me a url on it.  

Otherwise, I'm aware of nothing stopping you from expressing your
views now.

It may be that you have a point of view which I've not taken into account.
If I can recognize a substantial unhandled element in your POV, I'll
see what I can do about incorporating it -- though I might need to ask
further questions to gain more perspective.

But, note that I do not (can not) take every statement describing a
person's POV as a literal description of what needs to be in the Social
Contract.

> > I'm trying to address problems resulting from ambiguous language in 
> > the social contract by rewriting it to describe current practice.
> 
> Including claims that substantially change current positions does not 
> do that.

You have yet to identify any actual change in what we do.

All you've identified is new words descrbing what we do, with hypothetical
situations that, if they represented what we do would be changed by
these new words.

New words -- which don't result in us doing anything different -- do
not seem, to me, to represent substantial changes.

Neither are wording changes that only change things which we are not
doing.

> > Do you want me to construct a list of urls for each draft?
> 
> I would like to see:
> 1. description of changes from the current social contract, with 
> rationale;
> 2. description of changes from the proposal being amended;
> 3. description of changes from previous versions.
> 
> However, I only asked for the first of these previously. You did post 
> one such rationale before, but the wording seems to have changed 
> since.

Ok, I'll generate these afresh.  This will take a bit of time -- hopefully
I'll post them all by tomorrow, but "by tomorrow" is not a promise.

> > I provided an extensive description in every change of a couple 
> > draft's around that time.  I also provided at the top of most (if not all)
> > of proposal drafts a short description of the changes introduced in
> > that draft.
> 
> Why have you not continued that practice? It makes it very hard for 
> new readers, or even just people returning after ignoring you for a 
> while.

I have continued the "at the top" practice.  I need to sit back and
reflect before I write up the full description.

> >> Yes, we can all repeat work which it would be easier for you to do 
> >> at source. I would rather spend that time elsewhere.
> > 
> > Oh, cute, sarcasm.
> 
> That was a statement of fact. If you think that is sarcasm, you should 
> look up the meaning of the word.

It's sarcasm because you were not seriously suggesting that everyone read
the previous proposal drafts for my change comments.  That your statement
is also factual when taken literally doesn't remove that aspect of what
you wrote.

> > Look, if you're going to be ambiguous about what you ask for, and my
> > efforts to supply what you ask for meet with criticism, then I'm going
> > to try to resolve that ambiguity before I try to meet your needs 
> > again.
> 
> You admitted that you no longer make efforts to supply what you 
> clearly understood previously, so it cannot have been that ambiguous 
> when I wrote it the first time.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, here.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

[Anthony DeRobertis]

On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:

Nitpick: on-line, not online

dictionary.com says both are acceptable.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Raul Miller wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:

Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
talking about.


Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?
I described situation which contradicts human ethic when one is not
able to help because he agreed to what is written in non-free license.
Such situation is one of consequences of non-free distribution. I said
that people who distribute non-free instead of working on free do not 
take in account negative consequences of what they are doing.

You said that you are quite aware of the consequences. I asked you, what 
are this bad consequences which you balance against good consequences.

That is what you said:
> I think we're quite aware of the consequences, and that each of us
> balances the good consequences against the bad consequences.
Can you please describe this bad consequences? Are they same which I 
describe?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Sven Luther wrote:

I hope I answered this question in other thread, just to make it as 
clear as possible. I agree with the fact that stopping to distribute 
non-free will decrease the amount of good, which Debian can do. It was 
wrong and stupid to claim opposite from my side. This fact doesn't 
change the fact that by distributing non-free Debian act in the way 
which lead to unethical situations. Dropping non-free itself will 
decrease the amount of good, but it will decrease also the amount of 
actions which lead to unethical situations.

The only solution I see, to get from the situation where the Debian is, 
will be that Debian not just drops non-free, but will redirect efforts 
and resources from distributing non-free to free packages support and 
distribution.


Well, the problem with that premise, is that it will redirect the effort
from working on free _and_ non-free software, to the work needed to
maintain the non-free.org architecture and/or maintaining the non-free
packages outside of debian.
I said that by redirecting efforts and resources from non-free to free
we will reduce amount of unethical situations. You say that redirecting 
efforts and resources from non-free to free (that is what I propose) 
will redirect them on something else.

I do not understand you here. You probably mean that you will do 
something else because distributing non-free is very important for
you. But I was talking about you. I mean you will redirect your
efforts as well as other Debian developers.

And notice that altough many non-free packages are quite ok (imagine a
licence of the kind "GPL but additional limitation that it can't be used
for mass murders or such"), there are others, and in particular the
binary-only ones, which are not only non-ethical, but also plain _evil_.
I do not talk for a moment about the whole non-free. Currently I am 
talking about 2 clear cases: (1) packages with sources without permition 
to distribute modified versions and (2)packages without sources.

I think that software or any other thing can not be evil without 
associated human action.

--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Sven Luther wrote:

Ok, apologizes accepted, but i still think that your argumentation is
wrong.
Thanks.

You are claiming that the act of distributing non-free can cause a
problem for someone, while i really don't see how someone having access
to a non-free package from debian that he can either not modify or not
distribute is worse in any way than not getting access to said package.
This is not complete proposal. I also mention redirection of efforts and 
resources.
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Hamish Moffatt]

I second this proposal.

Hamish

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.
> 
> I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
> this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
> yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
> want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
> A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.
> 
> The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
> it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
> been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
> for non-free software.
> 
> The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
> Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
> about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
> but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
> phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
> from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
> concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
> contract, which is what I've tried to do here.
> 
> This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
> striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
> that text as follows:
> 
> - -- 
> 
> I propose the following resolution:
> 
> We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
> by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
> will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
> will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
> of the original social contract.
> 
> Here's the replacement for the social contract:
> 
> 
> Debian's Social Contract
> 
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
> we offer to the free software community.
>  
>   
>  
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>  
>   1. Debian will remain 100% free software
> 
>  Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
>  entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
>  software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
>  if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
>  and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
>  never make the system depend on non-free software.
> 
>   2. We will give back to the free software community
> 
>  When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
>  them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>  We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
>  widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
>  as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
>  authors of works included in our system.
> 
>   3. We will not hide problems
> 
>  We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
>  at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
>  visible to others.
> 
>   4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 
>  We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
>  community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
>  will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
>  kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
>  works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
>  charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
>  others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
>  other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
>  we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
>  no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
> 
>   5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
>  the use of software which does not conform to t

Re: non-free and users?

[Sergey V. Spiridonov]

Anthony Towns wrote:

Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.

That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
in the most effective way.
And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?

Please help me get my wireless access points configured; the only
software I have for them is Windows only and doesn't seem to work,
and I can't seem to make them use the same ESSID.
Sorry, can't help you. :(

I don't see why you'd feel bad in any way at having to say "sorry, can't
help you" to requests like that. If you actually do, I think you should
seriously consider changing your outlook.
I want, please help me. This will probably make my life much more
happier. Can you please tell me, do you think there are some bad 
consequences from distributing non-free? Is everything completely
O.K. with this from your point of view?

What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
to value them more than non-free licenses?
--
Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GR: Editorial amendments to the social contract

[Scott James Remnant]

On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 20:24, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2004, at 16:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 
> >
> > Nitpick: on-line, not online
> >
> dictionary.com says both are acceptable.
> 
Since when has dictionary.com been an acceptable source of words? :-)

Oxford English Dictionary seems to prefer "online", but provides both.

Scott
-- 
Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Towards a transition plan to nonfree.org (was Re: summary of software licenses in non-free)

[Michael Banck]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:19:36PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to work out what I'd want to
> > > work on should this GR pass -- can I put up with crappy, contrib-style,
> > > third party non-free stuff well enough that I can avoid having to do
> > > a whole lot of boring make work to reimplement various bits of Debian
> > > infrastructure? 
> > I don't think you need to reimplement Debian infrastructure in order to
> > duplicate it, just to adjust it. Of course, you're more expert than me
> > to comment on this.
> 
> Re-roll-out? Whatever. You don't have to rewrite it, but you do have
> to get new machines, 

Well, let's have a look at this first. Do you really think they'd need
more than one machine? If we assume that nonfree.org will get mirrored,
most of the load should be up to whatever archive maintenance system
will be used, plus the BTS.

For a couple of hundred packages, I'd imagine any recent box should
suffice. Again, your input as [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ftp-master on this
subject would quite valuable. I'll try to get some figures about
download volumes from a mirror admin, too, though, if nobody beats me to
it.

> and set it all up, and maintain it, and patch the systems, and track
> upstream and all that other stuff. There's a lot of effort there, and
> it's pretty boring, and given it's just for non-free stuff, it's
> pretty low value -- certainly compared to doing the same work for the
> main archive.

True. That said, I'd like to stress the point again that neither I nor
anybody else expects the current Debian infrastructure maintainers to
step forward and setup/maintain nonfree.org. But a bit of advice to
whoever might do it would be very welcome I guess.

> > I wouldn't consider
> > outsourcing less than 200 packages (forgot the exact number) a 'fork'.
> > The requirements for infrastructure and maintenance are considerably
> > lower than for a full-blown fork of Debian, IMHO.
> 
> I'm not really convinced. If you're going to have it work as well
> as Debian, you need to have an archive and a bug tracking system and
> probably some mailing lists. 

Let's break this down:

1. Mailing Lists
I guess setting up mailing-lists is fairly easy these days, plus I don't
think a lot would be needed.

2. Bug Tracking System
The BTS is a different story. It would be gratis if a gforge-like
service would be used, but I guess gforge is not really suited for this
kind of downstream stuff (haven't talked to the alioth admins about this
yet, though). So the question is: How much work would setting up debbugs
for an independent archive be? I'd say it would be quite a bit of work,
but I think nothing unsurmountable.

3. Package Archive and its Maintenance
> If you're going to have it be centralised, as opposed to lots of
> independent apt sources, you need to have signed uploads, and some way
> of verifying the people who send you keys are who they say they are,
> and, ideally, aren't grossly incompetent. I don't think any of the
> non-Debian apt repositories satisfy these requirements, 

I agree that signed uploads are a requirement for this, as is a verfied
developer base. The policy of who will be in the nonfree.org keyring is
of course left to its maintainer, but I guess DDs and perhaps people
which passed the identification test in n-m are alright. One will have
to wait and see whether the nonfree.org developers will be a subset of
the current DDs or will rather be a different set of people mostly.

Furthermore, I believe that dak is overkill for nonfree's size. If
somebody steps forward to set it up and maintain it on nonfree.org, that
would be cool of course, but in the absence of an volunteer, I don't
think it's really required to have katie for that.

Now, one system which provides centralized apt-sources and signed
uploads is currently used for mentors.d.n. I've talked to one of the
maintainers a while ago and he said it should be possible to use that. I
haven't spoken to the main developer yet, though, so I'm not sure about
the availabilty of it (it might be non-free, dunno :)

4. Package Tracking
Oh, and I've talked to Raphael Hertzog about PTS. He said it should be
possible to put the PTS on a non-official Debian archive without too
much work.

That's it so far.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Amendment of "removal of non-free" proposal 20040121-13

[Greg Norris]

I second this proposal.

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:40:14AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> 
> [This is a repost -- Sven Luther has asked that that my call for seconds
> is not in reply to any other post.]
> 
> This is a call for seconds on the proposal I submitted on the 19th:
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html
> 
> Many people have contributed to the wording of this proposal.  I believe
> this proposal is an improvement over the current Social Contract, and
> I also believe it's better than the currently available alternatives.
> 
> I don't participate much in other forums (such as IRC) -- if you think
> this proposal is worth seconding, and it hasn't gotten enough sponsors
> yet, please bring it to the attention of other people who you think might
> want to sponsor it.  The proposal needs five sponsors to be introduced.
> A couple extra won't hurt, and might be a good precaution against errors.
> 
> The rationale for this proposal is:  clean up the social contract, make
> it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
> been interpreting it.  This includes continuing our existing support
> for non-free software.
> 
> The social contract was originally written to address scepticism that
> Debian would eventually turn into a commercial operation, and questions
> about what exactly we were doing.  I think it's done a pretty good job,
> but there have been a few lingering questions based on ambiguous turns of
> phrase in the text.  Although it's impossible to eliminate all ambiguity
> from a document of this nature, it is possible to address specific
> concerns by looking at how we as a group have been interpreting the
> contract, which is what I've tried to do here.
> 
> This proposal is formally an amendment of Andrew Suffield's proposal
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200312/msg00044.html
> striking all text but "I propose the following resolution" and replacing
> that text as follows:
> 
> - -- 
> 
> I propose the following resolution:
> 
> We will replace our social contract with two documents, as specified
> by the recent constitutional amendment.  The first replacement document
> will be the social contract below, and the second replacement document
> will be the Debian Free Software Guidelines extracted from the remainder
> of the original social contract.
> 
> Here's the replacement for the social contract:
> 
> 
> Debian's Social Contract
> 
> The Debian Project is an association of individuals who have made common
> cause to create a free operating system.  This is the "social contract"
> we offer to the free software community.
>  
>   
>  
> "Social Contract" with the Free Software Community
>  
>   1. Debian will remain 100% free software
> 
>  Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system composed of
>  entirely free software. As there are many definitions of free
>  software, we use the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine
>  if software is free. We will also support our users who develop
>  and run other software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will
>  never make the system depend on non-free software.
> 
>   2. We will give back to the free software community
> 
>  When we write new components of the Debian system, we will license
>  them in a manner consistent with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
>  We will make the best system we can, so that free works will be
>  widely distributed and used. We will communicate things such
>  as bug fixes, improvements and user requests to the "upstream"
>  authors of works included in our system.
> 
>   3. We will not hide problems
> 
>  We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view
>  at all times. Reports that people file online will promptly become
>  visible to others.
> 
>   4. Our priorities are our users and free software
> 
>  We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software
>  community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
>  will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
>  kinds of computing environments. We will not object to non-free
>  works that are intended to be used on Debian systems, or attempt to
>  charge a fee to people who create or use such works. We will allow
>  others to create distributions containing both the Debian system and
>  other works, without any fee from us. In furtherance of these goals,
>  we will provide an integrated system of high-quality materials with
>  no legal restrictions that would prevent such uses of the system.
> 
>   5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards
> 
>  We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
>  the use of software which does not conform to the Debia

Re: non-free and users?

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:15:13PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> >Again, distributing non-free software in Debian is *by definition* ethical.
> I understand, I mean human ethic which supersedes Debian ethics.

If there were one "human ethic" that was universally agreed upon, this
might be worth talking about; but there isn't.

> >That's a matter for debate, not assertion. Of all the choices available
> >to us, IMO, Debian distributing non-free *does* serve human interests
> >in the most effective way.
> And you are sure, there is nothing wrong with this, aren't you?

No, I'm not sure there's nothing wrong with it, but I certainly don't
think there's anything wrong with it. If Debian were the one allowing
people to create non-free software -- ie, was behind copyright law itself
-- I might be concerned, but as it is we have to treat copyright law
as a given, and work out the best things we can do in that context. And
as I've said elsewhere, I don't think distributing non-free imposes any
significant costs, and does provide some significant benefits.

> What are all this GPL, LGPL, BSD and Artisic about? What is the reason
> to value them more than non-free licenses?

Huh? Isn't that obvious?

The question isn't why should we value these licenses more, the question
is whether, given the choice, there's any software we should choose not
to distribute.

For comparison, I'd consider the GPL and BSD licenses far more valuable
than the Artistic license; and while that's a reason for me to *prefer*
software licensed under the GPL or BSD license, it's not a reason to
avoid software under the Artistic license outright.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

   Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
   http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: non-free and users?

[Raul Miller]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 07:58:05PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> >>Are bad consequences which you take in account the same as what I 
> >>describe? If not, can you please describe bad consequences you are 
> >>talking about.

Raul Miller wrote:
> > Which description(s), specifically, are you referring to?

On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:38:28PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> I described situation which contradicts human ethic when one is not
> able to help because he agreed to what is written in non-free license.

Note: I feel you've not provided an adequate basis for this statement.
It appears that the issue you are concerned about is not "when one is
not able to help" but that instead you are concerned about "written in
non-free license".

Otherwise, you would would also be concerned about "when one is not
able to help because Debian would not distribute software that doesn't
satisfy every guideline of DFSG."

> Such situation is one of consequences of non-free distribution. I said
> that people who distribute non-free instead of working on free do not 
> take in account negative consequences of what they are doing.

See above -- you're not taking into account negative consequences of
"Debian would not distribute".

However, I do believe I'm taking into account "negative consequences of
distributing non-free".  The big problem with distributing non-free is
that this might obscure free alternatives.  I attempt to address this
in part 5 of my proposed rewrite of the social contract where it says:
"Additionally, we will work to find, package and support free alternatives
to non-free software ..."

This, combined with some of the other statements in that proposal
("...we will never make the system depend on non-free software.",
"Our priorities are our users and free software" and "The software in
"non-free" satisfies some, but not all, of our guidelines", and so on)
make it very clear that non-free software is not a replacement for free
software, that we're providing software at a lower grade of freedom only
to address cases where that's the best we can do to help our users.

> You said that you are quite aware of the consequences. I asked you, what 
> are this bad consequences which you balance against good consequences.

Have you read my proposed social contract?  Did you notice the above
provisions?  If so, why do you feel the need to ask this question?

>  > That is what you said:
>  > I think we're quite aware of the consequences, and that each of us
>  > balances the good consequences against the bad consequences.
> 
> Can you please describe this bad consequences? Are they same which I 
> describe?

The potential bad consequences are that Debian might have to stop
distributing or supporting the package [perhaps partially, perhaps
completely], and that users might not have any other alternatives.

-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For M.J. Ray 1 of 3 -- changes from current social contract

[Raul Miller]

This is a description of the changes my proposal would introduce
to the current social contract.

Comparison of my proposal with the current social contract:

Section 1.

Title -- changed capitalization to correspond with 
Andrew Suffield's proposed editorial changes


First sentence -- got rid of Linux dependency (to allow
for Hurd and BSD distributions).  Old statement was somewhat
non-grammatical and didn't really state what debian was about,
so I fleshed out the description of Debian.

In the process, I changed the nature of the statement from a
promise to statement of purpose.  In my opinion, a promise implies
that we might have a conflicting agenda but we're constraining
ourselves because of this agreement.  In my opinion, a statement
of purpose is much more pervasive and fundamental.


Old:  We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution
entirely free software.

New:  Debian exists to distribute a general purpose system
composed of entirely free software.


Second sentence -- rephrased it to comply with the recent
constitutional amendment [where DFSG is a separate document
from the social contract).

Old:  As there are many definitions of free software, we include
the guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below.

New: As there are many definitions of free software, we use
the "Debian Free Software Guidelines" to determine if software
is free.

Third sentence -- added free software to this statement of support.
I think this is important as a part of keeping non-free software
in perspective.

Old: 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.

New: We will also support our users who develop and run other
software on Debian -- free or non-free -- but we will never make
the system depend on non-free software.


Sections 2, 3 and 4.

My proposed changes here are identical to those in Andrew Suffield's
editorial changes draft.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01526.html

These are simple cleanups which should not change the meaning of
the social contract.  I think they're a good idea, and so have
incorporated them.


Section 5.

Title -- Changed capitalization to conform to style in Andrew
Suffield's editorial changes draft.  Also, replaced the word
"Programs" with "Software" to make the association with the DFSG
more transparent.  Since the DFSG is no longer a part of the same
document as the social contract, I think it's important to rephrase,
where possible, to make their association obvious.

Old:  5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards

Mew:  5. Software that doesn't meet our free-software standards

Sentence 1 -- added a statement that not all of our users depend
on non-free software.  This is a part of keeping the non-free
distribution in perspective.

Old:  We acknowledge that some of our users require the use
of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software
Guidelines.

New:  We acknowledge that some, but not all, of our users require
the use of software which does not conform to the Debian Free
Software Guidelines.

Sentence 2 -- expanded on it, indicating the purpose of the
non-free archive.  Also replaced "FTP" with the more generic
term "internet" (to include support for other protocols, such
as HTTP).

Old:  We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our
FTP archive for this software.

New:  In order to accommodate these users, we have created
"contrib" and "non-free" areas in our internet archive.

Sentence 3/4 (old) 3 (new) -- I eliminated the phrase "is not part
of the Debian system".  I believe that the purpose of this phrase was
to keep non-free in perspective.  However, since "the Debian system"
isn't defined, there are a number of ambiguous interpretations of
this phrase, including some people thinking Debian shouldn't support
that software at all.

Also, I added an explicit statement that the software we distribute in
"non-free" must satisfy at least some of our guidelines.

Also, I've incorporated the cautionary statement which was sentence 4
of the old contract, but I've made it generic where the old statement
was specific to CD manufacturers.

This is probably the most important change in my proposal -- all
other changes are intended to reinforce this changed statement.
It's important to point out that even our non-free software is
in some sense of the word free software.  It's important to point
out at least some of the weaknesses of non-free software.

Old:  The softwar

For MJ Ray 2 of 3 -- changes from Andrew's proposal

[Raul Miller]

This is a description of the changes my proposal introduces when
compared to the proposal from Andrew Suffield which I'm amending.


The proposal Andrew Suffield has introduced, to eliminate
section 5 of the social contract, has two major aspects:

[1] It indicates that we remove a number of packages which we are
currently distributing (in my opinion: anything which doesn't make it
into the stable release which is not in main, or which is in main but
shouldn't be).

[2] It eliminates section 5 of the social contract (which trys to describe
our treatment of software which doesn't satisfy all requirements of
the DFSG).

It doesn't attempt to deal with any of the rest of the social contract,
and Andrew has provided no rationale for this change.

It might be worth noting that he's incorporated a few of my changes
into his editorial fixes proposal -- these aren't about our relationship
with our users so much as language cleanups to bring the social contract
language in line with other changes.

My proposal differs in a number of respects:

[A] Mine documents and expands on existing practice, instead specifying
that it change.

[B] Mine incorporates editorial fixes, instead of deferring them for
later.

[C] Mine expands the description of our support for free software users
in various ways.  Andrew's is all about dropping support, and includes
nothing about improving our relationship with our users

[D] Andrew's puts a deadline on dropping a number of packages, and on
dropping some of our user support (next stable release), mine does not.


-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For MJ Ray 3 of 3 -- changelog for my drafts

[Raul Miller]

This is an excerpt of my "what kind of change is this" that I included
with each of my drafts.  In some cases, the changes were trivial (cleaning
up grammar), so I did not describe them in any detail.  I believe I've
indicated all substantial changes with more explicit description.



http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01453.html

   This is an update to my previous proposal to address some of the
   criticisms the proposal has received.  In this proposal, I spell out
   in a bit more detail the relationship between our guidelines and our
   "non-free" distribution, and clean up the rest of part 5 to fit.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01374.html

   This draft introduces further cleanups and corrections.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01351.html

   I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve
   spelling and grammar.  I've also changed the title of part 5 to be
   about Software, like the rest of the social contract.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01327.html

   I've made several changes in the wording of part 5 to improve grammar,
   reduce my overuse of "to depend" words, and make clearer the reason
   I'm mentioning LSB in the context of non-free.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01272.html

   I've fixed several errors in part five.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01227.html

   Changes from the previous version (msg01188.html):
   [1] replace "programs" with the more general term "software" (part 5),
   [2] change the free alternatives language to better reflect what
we do (part 5),
   [3] Incorporate wholesale updates to parts 2, 3 and 4 as suggested
   by Andrew Suffield at 
   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01192.html
   [4] Make explicit the constitutional removal of the DFSG from the 
   social contract,
   [5] Remove a bit of language from the meta-title which I added in 
   the previous version (msg01188.html).


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01188.html

   This version removes "Linux" from the title and spells out who the
   contract is with.  I also fix the grammatical mistake Sven found.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01184.html

   These changes make the relevance of non-free software more explicit.


http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01122.html

   First draft


-- 
Raul


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]