On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 03:55:52PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > > It's a requirement that all the programs in main satisfy the requirements > > > of the DFSG. At present it's not a requirement that the text of copyright > > > licenses, or documentation satisfy the requirements of the DFSG.
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 02:02:31AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Guideline #3 never mentions "programs". On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 06:39:54PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Yet, nevertheless the above is the case. Why? How? > > > You can answer all aspects of the second question without knowing the > > > answer to the first, except one: "how should the social contract address > > > the issue of non-free". > > Well, in the sense that your "except one" is your first question. > Well, no. The first question is "Should the social contract > require/forbid/allow non-free?" The second question is "How do we describe > our requirements about non-free to best communicate our intentions?" > > We can answer the second question right now. If we decide to change our > requirements, we may have to ask it again. > > But they're fundamentally different questions. Andrew's introduced proposal answers both questions. Why do you want mine to only address one of those two? [If I understand you correctly, it's because Andrew's is about changing what we do, while mine is about helping people understand what we do. But that doesn't seem to warrant the asymmetry you are proposing.] [it is] > > > > The descriptive text in the social contract which defines our > > > > relationship with non-free software. > > > What about it? You're changing the text, but what are you doing that'll > > > actually change how we behave? > > Hopefully, not a whole lot, other than avoiding a few arguments. > > Uh. The axis was "substantive changes". You claimed there were more > than what I listed, and give an example that doesn't change anything > that we do? "substantive changes" in what? Now you seem to be claiming that what has to change substantially is what the project does, rather than how we describe what we do. I don't know why you consider this a valid claim. > > Even in your example, if the motive for "Let's change our goals" is > > "because they're not described in French", they're still not independent. > That would be true if it were the case. It's not, though. That's your hypothetical example, modified with my analogy to how I see the problem. In my opinion it's not the case because it's a hypothetical example. I understand that you think the problem I see is a non-problem. That might be cause for you to vote against me, but in itself is insufficient to convince me to change my proposal. [That said, I *am* changing my proposal, I just don't know if my changes will satisfy you.] > > No, but I can point at people who will point at the wording of the social > > contract when asked why they don't think we should distribute non-free. > Well, no. They point at "Debian will be 100% free", and say that that's > a superior goal to the one we're actually aiming for. Well, no. That's not what it says in the social contract, so there's plenty of counter-examples where people claim something different. > > It's extremely difficult to get people to talk about their motivations. > Well, you're basing your entire resolution on an assumption about other > people's motives, without any support for that assumption at all. If your > resolution stands alone -- it's something that you want to see done in > and of itself -- that's fine; if it's a compromise that's intended to > demonstrate to some of the people who support an approach you don't like > that there's a better way, it's probably a waste of time. Clearly, it's based on my understanding of other people's motives. Clearly, also, I can't adapt it to every other person's motives -- every person has different motives. What I can do, and have been trying to do, is incorporate what I understand as the basis for each person's motives. If my current understanding of the basis of yours is correct, I think I would drop my changes to sections 2..4, and my capitalization changes. I think should [for example] change the phrase "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" to one which more generically describes the distribution because that's what we're promising to keep 100% free software, and if we don't describe that promise properly that confuses people. However, given that I couldn't think of anyway to phrase the above paragraph without talking about the promise in the social contract, I think I should change my proposal back to using the "We promise" phrasing. > > > > Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from proposing "goals only" > > > > amendments. > > > As I've already said to Branden and Andrew; I think it's better to discuss > > > why we want to do things, what we should do and how we do it, before > > > actually doing anything. I'm well aware that I can propose amendments. > > And how do you propose that happen? > Huh? I'm talking, you're talking, other people are talking. How else > would it happen? If that's satisfactory to you, then [now that Andrew's has been introduced] my proposal seems to have the additional value of getting you to talk about what you consider important. [Unfortunately, my understanding of what you're saying is still split up into multiple pieces which contradict each other. But maybe after you've addressed my questions that will no longer be the case.] > > > Andrew's current proposal is *exactly* what a "goals only" proposal > > > should look like. It states what he wants to happen, and the minimum > > > number of changes to other things that need to be approved for it to > > > happen in a consistent manner. > > And he's provided no rationale for his changes. > > If that's exactly what you're advocating, I think I'm going to have to > > confess that I really don't know what you're advocating. > I have no idea what you think I'm talking about. > > What I'm advocating is one single ballot to decide the issue of "What do > we do about non-free?". If we're going to drop it, we should do that: drop > it from the social contract, drop it from the archive, and drop everything > else that needs to go with it. If we're going to keep it, then we should > decide that, and nothing else. That's completely black and white -- you've decided, apparently, not only the issue that's being resolved, but the form of every acceptable option? Even if I agree that that's the issue [and you're starting to convince me that I should restrict the scope of my changes], I see no reason at all to agree that proposals to keep non-free aren't allowed to change the social contract, but that proposals to drop non-free are. > If we want to do other things -- like tidy up the social contract -- > we can do that in other ballots as necessary. If I dropped the changes to sections 2 3 and 4, and the changes to the capitalization of the titles, and improved my changes to sections 1 and 5, do you think there's any chance that you might approve of the result? [I understand that you'd have to see the result before saying if you'd actually approve.] > > > (Well, perfect but for the usual provisos about not dealing with contrib > > > at all) > > That, and he's proposing specific actions. If specific actions are goals, > > I don't see why different specific actions (which happen to include the > > exact wording of the social contract) are not goals. > No, the question is "Is Debian's goal to distribute all the software we > can, or to be 100% pure free software in everything we do?" > > The answer to that question has implications we have to deal with: > changing the social contract, dropping stuff from the archive, dealing > with contrib. A good resolution, IMO, deals with the single question > that's at issue and its implications, and nothing else. I see that as one question. I can think of many similar questions which are pertinent to dropping non-free. I don't see any basis for ignoring those other questions. If you can provide me with a basis for dropping other, similar questions, and I agree with it, I'll modify my proposal accordingly. > > > (If it _is_ a factor, then, like Andrew has, we should make the minimum > > > number of changes to remedy whatever that problem is) > > Even if that problem is poor grammar? > > I find it pretty difficult to believe that you really think the grammar > of the social contract is so bad that it actively hinders people > understanding Debian's purpose wrt non-free. This doesn't match my > experience reading it, or seeing other people read it, even remotely. > Maybe you have to explain it, and maybe you get people arguing about what > "Debian" actually means, and maybe you get people saying "but wouldn't > it be better if Debian really *was* 100% free?", but I can't imagine > anyone saying "You want to know about Debian and non-free? Well, make > sure you don't read the social contract, it's just confusing". I see "people arguing about what Debian actually means" as a symptom of the the flawed grammar in the social contract. Grammar is very much about the usage of connecting words -- the resulting context has a major influence on which word meanings are relevant. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
