> Andrew Suffield's editorial-fixes proposal deals with the contentious issue > of the meaning of "Software" and the limitation of section 5 to "Programs", > by clarifying that the DFSG applies to *all* works.
Anthony Towns, doing his impersonation of someone who hasn't done his homework, wrote: >Unfortunately, the GPL is a "work", so this line of reasoning simply >doesn't, well, work. Debian can explicitly exempt license texts which apply to works in the Debian distribution, if necessary. I'll even write up the Social Contract change if you like. However, IMO the preamble to the GPL *should* be freely modifiable; it is a nasty defect that it isn't. >I'm not sure why you so object to non-free documentation that you're >unwilling to countenance any decision that leaves it in main. Non-free documentation causes an astounding amount of practical trouble. But more importantly, Debian is lying. I care about that. It is deeply objectionable for Debian to claim that it is "100% Free Software" when it isn't even *trying* to be. Just as it is deeply objectionable for RMS to claim that GFDL-licensed documents are free in the same way GPL-licensed documents are. (Which they aren't.) > I'm not >sure why you're unwilling to persuasively argue that it should be removed >immediately on its merits, either. I've argued this repeately (debian-legal among other places). My arguments have been persuasive to many people. Perhaps you weren't listening, or you wouldn't say that? I feel that the Social Contract should be amended to say what it already says, but *clearly*. I don't see what's wrong with that. If you think the Social Contract means something different from the meaning which is the consensus interpretation of debian-legal, which is also the meaning intended by Bruce Perens when writing the DFSG, you should most certainly propose a GR to change it to say that meaning, *clearly*. Then that issue could get resolved by a developer vote between two competing GRs. And even if it was resolved that Debian will contain "free programs and non-free documentation", at least I would spend less of my time arguing over the meaning of the word "software". And I would know that it was time to found a replacement for Debian, one which actually intended to be 100% Free -- I could apply for SPI support for it, too. (Whereas if it was resolved in the way I consider correct, I could wholeheartedly support Debian in every way possible.) >For someone who's not a developer, nor a n-m applicant, I'm not sure >why you think your opinion is an important factor in any decision making. (a) I'm a user. (b) I've done more work on QA and release preparation this cycle than most developers. (I mentioned a while back that the NM process did not look encouraging, and was told "Well, you can do lots of stuff without being a developer!" So I decided to see whether that was true. Answer: yes, except that occasionally certain people discount my views because I'm "not a developer". Hi, Anthony. Hi, James Troup.) (c) I am an SPI contributing member. (d) I am an upstream developer. (e) I am a prospective developer, although I have not applied to n-m. (Frankly, mastering GPG and getting keys signed is going to be the most painful part of the process for me, and that has to be done *before* applying to n-m.) -- Incidentally, you seem to think that "drop non-free" should be decided *before* the clarification of the Social Contract. I think they should be decided in the other order, because the implications of "dropping non-free" are much clearer once the Social Contract is clarified -- currently I am quite sure different people have different ideas about what will be dropped.
