Andreas Barth wrote: > * 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 Yes. :-)
> 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? Yeah. -- Make sure your vote will count. http://www.verifiedvoting.org/