* Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> [2019-10-24 16:11]: > Agreed! > > And that is where the social contract can help. While the Debian one > does explicitly say that it wants to let Debian work also with non-free > software, the GNU one can explicitly say that GNU contains only 100% > purely free software, and does not even mention existence of non-free > software (e.g. no firmware names in the Linux kernel).
I am very much sure that words such as "social contract" shall not be introduced into GNU project. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract "In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order." That rude people can be subject ot surrender some of their freedoms, for example to be expelled from GNU project, is already clear. No need for social contract there. There is a lot of wisdom in the tolerance and intentional ignorance by RMS. A "social contract" would never be able to duplicate the wisdom, tolerance, and intentional ignorance as it is conducted by RMS. It would further divide community and impose new "rules" which were not necessary for GNU project for decades. When something is successful, you leave it so. If mechanics is dirty, with dirty hands, but is repairing many cars, you don't pick on dirty hands, you award him and leave him as he is. Finding wrong targets and introducing new ideas is common mistake by people who try to take over any organization. It can easily damage successful courses of actions. -- Thanks, Jean Louis