Re: Editorial changes to the Social Contract
2006/2/11, Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > There isn't anything to do with politess. If I hurted you, them please > accept my apologies. But I'm frank enough to express my view as I > feel them. As a non-native English speaker, the vocabulary might > not always be appropriate. Hmm, you should probably know that in some places the word "extremist" has becomes a dirty word like "terrorist". I know it's not what you mean, but the evolution of language is not always something we can control. > > If you do not see how starting with a GNU Manifesto and > > modifying it to be Manoj's manifesto is a freedom that can be > > coveted, I am afraid I do not see how you understand the concept of > > freedom of software actually works. > > So, in real life, you shall be free to get a copy of some random novel, > change few life, and sell it as Manoj novel? If the original is written under a "free" license, sure. If the author doesn't want that then they shouldn't use such a license. The DFSG does allow you the possibility of requiring changed works to have a different title and you can't pass off their work as yours. But you can use the text as a basis for your work. > Either I do consider it as software, and in that case you are right. > Or I don't because the hardware is just a container and the work could > have an existance out of a computer. A program has no meaning out of > a computer. The GNU Manifesto does. Huh? A program certainly has meaning without a computer. That's why you can print it out and read it. Many algorithms can be far better explained by presenting a peice of code than by trying to describe it in words. > > Being able to create new, derivative essays tailored to my > > needs and views but based on works by other people is a right that > > being able to modify software gives me. > > Even by taking entire paragraph with the exact wording? Please note > I don't consider essays and program documentation on the same ground. Why not? Although you may not see the point of being able to produce derived works of essays, I really don't see the point of forbidding it. Words change their meaning over time and at some point the essay won't say what it originally meant. Why shouldn't people be able to touch up the language to match modern forms? For example, what you read as written by Shakespeare now often doesn't match what he wrote exactly. Derived works just take the idea further, in that you change the meaning also. You just can't pass it off as entirely your own. The question is, does Debian want to distribute stuff that it can't update if the need arises? Isn't that what freedom is all about? -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: Amendment to GR on GFDL, and the changes to the Social Contract
Hi, You make good arguments and I agree with many points. But the following: 2006/2/8, Nick Phillips <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Even if for some reason that I am unable to fathom you do fervently > believe that I am wrong in the above paragraph, then there is *still > nothing* to say that we can't happily pass GRs that contradict each > other. It would be foolish, sure, and perhaps reflect poorly on our > ability to work through these things, but democracies pass laws like > that the whole time and the courts seem to manage to resolve the > contradictions. Debian has no courts to resolve contradictions. No-one has the authority to rule one way or the other. So we have to decide now, before the vote, if there is a contradiction or not. Since there is disagreement here already, we have a difficulty. There are democracies that work this way. In some countries, courts cannot rule a law unconstitutional because that is the role of parliament. If the legislature says it's constitutional, it is. Contradictions are solved by the legislature. The point being that courts apply the law, but do not create it. Back to the issue at hand. Given the only source of authority considered by debian is the developers themselves, what we need to do is draft a GR as follows (I think Manoj suggested something like this): If there is a belief that a GR contradicts the foundations documents, this contradiction can be resolved by: 1. The project secretary 2. A majority vote 3. A 3:1 supermajority vote 4. The project leader. 5. The technical committee 6. Debian-legal The only other possibility is to add a second option to every possible vote asking developers to say whether they think this requires a supermajority or not. Or commually binding arbitration system to sort this out. I hope this doesn't go that far. > Note that the alternative to this process is for someone (usually a > General, it seems) to stand up and tell the parliament not to be so > damn silly, and to follow his interpretation of the constitution, or > else. This usually ends badly for all concerned. We have no courts, so what's the alternative? If we get a super-majority of developers to say a majority is enough, we're home. If a majority of developers say a majority is enough, what does that mean? Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: For those who care about the GR
2006/1/22, Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This goes even further here, because the DFSG is not even a strict set of > rules but are guidelines. As we all know, guidelines are subject to > interpretation on a case-by-case basis, that's what distinguishes them > from rules. Therefore, I think a specific application of guidelines can > not be seen as a fact. As someone who can't vote and thus whose opinion doesn't matter, it seems to me that the issue is that people may actually want to vote multiple ways: 1. debian-legal is wrong, the GFDL is compatable with the DFSG and thus should be included in main. 2. I know the GFDL isn't compatable with the DFSG but I think it should be allowed in main anyway. 3. I know the GFDL isn't compatable with the DFSG but the DFSG is only for software not documentation, so it's allowed in main for documentation only. :) It seems that some people see the vote as meaning 1 and others want meaning 2. The latter would seems to require changing the SC, the former wouldn't. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/
