Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html): >Currently, there seem to be several parts of the social contract which >attract interpretations which conflict with clear intent of the social >contract (as represented by common sense reading of what it has to say, >and as represented by existing practice). Yep -- I think "software" is the most infamous case. In that case we (meaning debian-legal readers) looked up the original definition of "software"; we checked what Bruce Perens meant when he wrote the DFSG; we discussed whether it was possible to make a meaningful, clear distinction between "programs", "data", and/or "documentation" (conclusion: no); we argued about whether all of the freedoms in the DFSG were important for non-programs (conclusion: yes), we invited anyone and everyone to contribute to the discussion, and finally we came to a pretty definite conclusion. But it took a long time and some people *still* don't get it.
>I'm thinking that the use of "Debian" as an noun to refer to products >of the Debian project is overly confusing -- it invites generalities >which don't really make sense. I think you're absolutely right and this is probably just as important a point. :-) Thanks for stating this so clearly. >In my opinion, the best synonym candidate for the word "Debian" in the >cases where it stands alone is "the Debian system". I think the best synonym candidate is "the Debian distribution", but "the Debian system" is good too. >Also, in my opinion, "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" is intended to >refer to the same thing as "the Debian system". I agree. >Also, in my opinion, I believe our "main" distribution is what we're >referring to when we speak of "the Debian system". I agree. >I believe this interpretation makes sense and is self consistent. I agree. >I believe Andrew Suffield's proposal to drop part of the social contract >is based on a misunderstanding -- basicaly, a misunderstanding of what >the term "Debian" means in the social contract when it's used by itself. I assume you are talking about the "drop non-free" proposal, not the "editorial amendments" GR? In that case, I have no comment. But I do want to clarify which you are referring to. >If you think this makes sense, please let me know. I do, indeed, think this makes sense.
