On Wed, 08 Jun 2016 09:22:00 -0400, coadde wrote: > On 06/07/2016 10:16 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote: > > ======================================================================== > > # What's going on with the official version? # > > ======================================================================== > > > > In 2014-2015, Coadde made a series of edits to the official version. > > I remember no discussion of the changes. > > > > He did essentially several search/replaces: > > > > - "Parabola GNU/Linux" -> "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" > > Ok, I guess. Still, it should have been discusssed. > > > > - "ArchLinux" -> "Arch" or "Arch GNU/Linux" > > Saying "Arch GNU/Linux" is wrong, it should be "Arch Linux". > > "Arch" is acceptable shorthand after the first use. > > > > Then, a bit over a month ago, Emulatorman made a change, which I also > > recall no discussion of. He changed "our community is democratic in > > its essence" to "adhocratic in its essence". A one-word change, but > > quite a significant one! > > 1) The distribution has been officially named as Parabola > GNU/Linux-libre and it doesn't needs a discussion.
Well, most of the motivation for my 2013 proposal that didn't pass was just clarifying nomenclature. > 2) I'm not agree so-called "Linux" distributions should be named as > "Linux" in our Social Contract, even if it is the factually named by them. See the reply I just sent to André's message. > 3) I'm not agree about FOSS[0] (even it isn't included in our Social > Contract) > > [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html I'm not sure where this comment came from. > 4) It is a free as in freedom distribution that follows the GNU FSDG, > therefore we shouldn't support "Open Source" goal implicitly, even if > "Arch Linux" is the factually named by them. See the reply I just sent to André's message. > 5) Democracy doesn't works. Adhocracy is the way for Parabola. That's a very loaded claim. Maybe it is true, but it certainly requires discussion before ammending the Social Contract to say that. Launching point for further discussion: there was good discussion about how to do governance when we were figuring out the Ceata agreement. > > In the social contract, we should be as clear and precise as > > possible. The operating system is called "Arch Linux". It is an > > unfortunate name that contributes to the Linux vs. GNU/Linux > > confusion, but that is what it is factually named. Note that in my > > wording, I wrote "Arch Linux" the first time it appears within a > > paragraph, but simply "Arch" after that. I believe that this is an > > acceptable compromise. > > Again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects the GNU FSDG > in the name confusion. See the reply I just sent to André's message. If you are referring to this as being a potential violation of the FSDG's "Name Confusion" section, this is actually not what that section describes; I also addressed this in my reply to André's message. > > ======================================================================== > > # Name of the [Parabola] operating system > > # > > ======================================================================== > > > > Cf. https://wiki.parabola.nu/Nomenclature > > > > Related to that, when the Social Contract discusses the operating > > system(s) that we make, I don't believe it should do so by name. > > > > The original wording was: > >> 4. Parabola GNU/Linux and ArchLinux: Parabola is the free version of > >> ArchLinux. > > > > In my proposal, I changed that to: > >> 4. Parabola and Arch Linux: We will produce an operating system > >> that is a Free version of Arch Linux, and possibly other > >> Arch-based systems. > > > > Emulatorman partially reverted that to: > >> 4. Parabola and Arch**: Parabola is a Free version of Arch, and > >> possibly other Arch-based systems. > > > > Again, if we are being precise, then Parabola GNU/Linux-libre is the > > Free version of Arch. > > > > But I oppose saying "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" in the Social Contract, > > because it is overly specific. The name of the operating system we > > make shouldn't be part of the Social Contract; it is an implementation > > detail, not an essential detail. > > > > What if tomorrow we decided that it would be better to use a different > > libre fork of Linux than Linux-libre? Should our Social Contract have > > to be ammended to allow that? No, that would be absurd. > > I mean it again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects > the GNU FSDG in the name confusion. In this section I didn't mean to discuss how we refer to Arch. I meant to discuss how the Social Contract refers to the operating system that Parabola makes. Specifically, I oppose referring to it by name (the name being "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre"). > > ======================================================================== > > # Free Art Movement? # > > ======================================================================== > > > > I feel kinda silly saying this, but: I'm not familiar with a Free Art > > Movement. And even if I'm silly for that, we shouldn't assume that > > the reader of the Social Contract is more informed than me. And > > searching for it yields results that I don't think are related. > > > > I am familiar with the Free Culture movement. How is this different? > > > > With the Free Software Movement, we have a link to Wikipedia, in case > > the reader is unfamiliar with it. We have details on what that > > means. > > > > The same isn't true for Free Art. It just says "it does not provide > > any type of support for non-free art." and tacks on "and art" after > > "software." With no real details. It references the FSDG for > > software, then just says "and art". What does it mean to "not provide > > … support for non-free art."? > > I prefer our Social Contract could means about free software, documents > and multimedia. In this section I wasn't opposing adding Free Art/Culture stuff to the Social Contract (back in 2013 I suggested that we should add Free Culture stuff to it). But I was noting that the proposed wording doing so is bad and unclear. -- Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
