Mathieu Roy wrote: >Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : >> So you classify some forms of political statement as more worthwhile? >> Which political statements should Debian accept? Which should it reject? > >Debian already accept political statements. Please, a "social contract" >cannot be apolitical! >When you propose rules for a society, a social entity, via a social >contract, you're are indeed trying to rule your *polis*.
We include the social contract under a license that allows it to be modified or removed, and the resulting distribution redistributed. It's included because we think it provides a service to users without restricting the guarantees we make within it. A copy of the GNU manifesto that was modifiable would be redistributed in the same way without complaint. >> No, a political statement does not document the software. It tells us >> something about the author's motivations. > >Which can be considered as an information about the software. Sure, it's information about the software. It's not documentation about the software. >> Making a political statement within the software does exactly the >> same. Why do you believe that one should be protected and the other >> shouldn't? > >Because a software is not a documentation. No. In the specific case of making a political statement, why should we protect the author's opinions in documentation and not in programs? You claimed that invarient sections were needed because the author's opinions might be misrepresented - this could only be a reasonable opinion if you believe that misrepresenting the author's opinions is always bad, which would have to hold for programs as well. So, why do you not hold a consistent position here? >Side note: I never said that 'political statement within the >documentation should be protected' but I said that I understand and >think acceptable and harmless why some people want to protect some >political statement in a documentation. This is pretty different. Not really, no. It limits Freeness - the only way it could be "harmless" is if you believe that the potential harm caused is significant compared to the freedom lost. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
