On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:58:57PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > > Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue > > of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs", > > by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works. > Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his > homework, wrote: > >Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply > >doesn't, well, work. > Debian can explicitly exempt license texts which apply to works in the Debian > distribution, if necessary.
Yes, we can exempt documentation too. We can do either explicitly or implicitly, too. We have lots of options. Isn't life grand? > But more importantly, Debian is lying. It seems odd that you care so much more about Debian "lying" in the case of documentation than you care about us "lying" in the case of software licenses. It's the same "lie" in each case, the only difference is in how it affects our users. And, honestly, lying isn't the most horrible thing we could do: we're here to make a free operating system, not to be the supreme oracles of truth. The most horrible thing we could do is to make our operating system unusable, or betray the free software community. You know, the free software community that was more or less founded by the FSF? You know, the organisation that thinks documentation doesn't need to be as free as programs? Personally, I don't think it's remotely reasonable to claim that it's a lie at all. If it were, then the people objecting to it should be at least equally split between advocating changing the text and changing the way Debian behaves; but instead, the only people trying to change the text seem to be doing so in order to appease others, not because they themselves are particularly concerned. Meanwhile, the people who think it's a "lie" are trying to force Debian to adhere to there interpretation. > I care about that. It is deeply > objectionable for Debian to claim that it is "100% Free Software" when it > isn't even *trying* to be. Well, I'm sorry that you're so blinkered as to think that software cannot possibly mean programs, but not documentation, or so naive to think that just because the line between the two isn't bright and straight, that it can't be drawn nevertheless. > > I'm not > >sure why you're unwilling to persuasively argue that it should be removed > >immediately on its merits, either. > I've argued this repeately (debian-legal among other places). My arguments > have been persuasive to many people. Perhaps you weren't listening, or you > wouldn't say that? Well, the conclusion you've come up with seems to be "change the social contract", so I don't see how you could've been particularly persuasive as far as "changing the way Debian behaves without changing the social contract" is concerned. In any event, debian-legal is a list for analysing legal matters; the issues that make it unreasonable to drop non-free documentation aren't legal issues at all. > I feel that the Social Contract should be amended to say what it already > says, but *clearly*. I don't see what's wrong with that. Because that's not what you think. You think that the Social Contract should be amended so that people who disagree with you are *forced* to do what you want. Because it's clear that the Social Contract *doesn't* say what you think it already says; because if it did, there wouldn't be any disagreement with you in the first place. > If you think the Social Contract means something different from the meaning > which is the consensus interpretation of debian-legal, which is also the > meaning intended by Bruce Perens when writing the DFSG, you should most > certainly propose a GR to change it to say that meaning, *clearly*. debian-legal is a mailing list, imagining that it has any decision making power any more than debian-devel does is really just fantasy. It's also not particularly representative -- the list exists precisely so that people who're interested in *doing* things, don't have to worry about pedantic legal arguments, because there are (or at least were) a significant number of developers who fit that bill. Now, you can claim that Bruce and -legal are authorities under god if you like, but frankly, if you want to overrule the decision of the delegates involved, you're the one that needs to propose the GR. Oh, but wait, you can't do that because you're not even a developer. > Then that issue could get resolved by a developer vote between two competing > GRs. The issue's already resolved by letting the people who do the work make the decision. You know, the way Debian always works. You know, the way the constitution describes decisions being made by delegates and maintainers. > >For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure > >why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making. > (a) I'm a user. And? Plenty of users care passionately about having good documentation available. RMS has done more for free software than you have, and he thinks that GFDL licensed docs are entirely free enough. Again, why do you think your opinion matters, let alone enough to trump RMS's? > (b) I've done more work on QA and release preparation this cycle than most > developers. And? Plenty of developers who've done more work than you on this cycle or others care and have opinions too. > (I mentioned a while back that the NM process did not look > encouraging, and was told "Well, you can do lots of stuff without being a > developer!" So I decided to see whether that was true. Answer: yes, except > that occasionally certain people discount my views because I'm "not a > developer". Hi, Anthony. Hi, James Troup.) Contributing and controlling are different things. You can contribute all you like as a non-developer, but you certainly shouldn't expect to be able to make demands just because you do so. Even as a developer you don't get to make that many demands. If you're really the kind of person who thinks his opinion is worth anything to anyone else for it's own sake, you're probably going to end up disappointed if you ever bother to join Debian, too. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
