* Nathanael Nerode ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040325 00:55]: > > Well, IMHO the old version is much nicer. The social contract _should_ > > in my opinion have some nice, not too technical start. A promise is a > > very good start, and I'd like to keep that there. > You have a point. Andrew's version is clearer, but less stylish. How about > this?
Wouldn't it be good to have a stylish and clear text? In my opinion we shouldn't lose the stylish in trying to get a clearer text. (And, BTW, we don't have any real hard problem with the current text. But - the SC is more a "political" text then a real contract. Nobody could sue Debian for not following the SC, but the SC is one important part of Debians attractivity. > > In the second sentence, I'd like to keep the word "below", as the DFSG > > _are_ a part of the SC. > Today's debate over matters of total insignificance: Are the DFSG part of > the SC or are they a separate document? Why do people care, given that the > same modification rules apply to both of them if they're separate, and the > same importance is given to both of them? Why do people try to change this, if there is no need? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C