Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Not all pros in this GR are what I call extremists. I suspect some of them >> did not expect the consequences of modifying the SC that way. After all, >> weren't they editorial changes? > > Ah. I didn't understand earlier that you meant you felt deceived by the GR > as someone who voted in favor of it. This is rather surprising to me; I > was taken off guard by the immediate consequences of the GR, but I had no > doubt as to its intended meaning -- i.e., that all bits in the archive > should be treated under the same rules.
This is what I call fundamentalism (no offence meant), that is a bare interpretation of guidelines, without leaving a place for "external parameters", say Common Sense. For instance, how does shipping Emacs with verbatim essays from RMS, the GNU Manifesto, and any other stuffs like that makes it non-free? Will removing them make Debian more free? I doubt anyone is going to convince me of this, despite the interpretation of the SC. Speaking of GFDL, while I admit invariant sections are problematic, there are cases where shipping programs without their documentation would render them useless. For example, I can't imagine Debian shipping desktop environments without their documentation. Also, I can't see a definition of what Software is. I've not seen any definition going beyond that: >From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]: software n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory; "the market for software is expected to expand" [syn: {software system}, {software package}, {package}] [ant: {hardware}] Software would be program + their technical documentation. So, do data have to follow the same rules? And verbatim essays? ... >> I'm not happy with the results, but I've never questions the validity >> of the vote. > > Hmm, fair enough; your comments did seem awfully parallel to those of Marco, > who *does* question the validity of the vote (repeatedly...). Votes are conducted by the Secretary and I trust him enough to think that rules are being religiously followed. Nonetheless, I'm not sure rules are ideal, especially the 3:1 supermajority. >> > BTW, votes in Debian *are* public, you know; and >> > <http://www.debian.org/vote/2004/gr_editorial_tally.txt> clearly shows you >> > voted in favor of modifying the Social Contract. Could you make up your >> > mind which vocal minority you intend to be a part of, please? > >> I thought it was editorial changes, but it looks it was not. > >> I thought there were some bits of common sense with interpreting DFSG, >> so modifying the SC was OK. But it seems _some_ people wants that >> "every byte in main shall be covered by a free software license, whatsoever". >> I think it is insane, so modifying the SC was not a good idea after all. > > Well, as I said, if you don't think this is the correct outcome, it's in > your power to change it. I think that developers changing their minds about > a particular ballot option *is* a legitimate reason to have a new vote. I > would rather see a second vote on the same question, than to see developers > feeling that their project has been co-opted by an extremist minority. I agree with you. Fundamentaly, we are missing the rationale for the SC and DFSG, and what was meant in them. They seem to be entrenched with nobody willing to change/improve them. > I disagree that I'm an extremist and I don't believe that I'm a minority, > but I do respect your right to prove me wrong. :) I'll try to stay civil at least :-) -- Jérôme Marant