Dear Mark, On behalf of whom are you making these documents?
Is there authorization by RMS? Is it possible to see your authorization? Without it, such document is not holding water. In relation to your document see my comments below: * Mark Wielaard <m...@klomp.org> [2020-01-02 13:43]: > Thanks. Attached is an updated version and a diff with this change and > a few other small nitpicks mainly aimed at making the text more > concise. > > - Put the introduction text in one paragraph. > - Add "all" users for which the Four Essential Freedoms should hold. To add "all" users is not necessary, as the freedom zero is very clear that it is for everybody. See: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and where it says: "The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. " Thus "all" users is not necessary, as that would mean nobody is reading the actual freedom, but focus on your "social contract" which is not "social" at all. > - Remove extra explanations from the Four Essential Freedoms. > They are self-evident and make the text longer than necessary. Four freedoms are not self-evident, and they must be detailed and that is why there exists GNU General Public License which defines the freedomes. I do not see where your reasoning comes from. How about hiring an attorney to draft it for you? Try asking for help and assistance by professionals in the field of legalities. > GNU Social Contract > > These are the core commitments of the GNU Project to the broader free > software community. The GNU Project provides a software system that > respect users' freedoms. GNU project was always for any type of community, and I do not know why are you insisting with words "broader" -- as there is no limitation who can use GNU software. GNU project does not provide just software system, rather it is project to build fully free operating system. Software system and operating system are not same in its meanings. In general, all that you write about is totally not necessary, I cannot see what are your purposes, in fact I see your actions as animosity towards the original GNU project, so you are not explaining what really bothers you, and what is really your problem. Could you tell on the list what is your real problem? I cannot see what new you are introducing here. I just got a feeling you have some serious undeclared problem. > * The GNU Project respects users' freedoms It was always like that, since beginning, so why now "social" contract which is not social at all? Or social means you and Ludovic? > The GNU Project provides software that guarantees to all users the > /Four Essential Freedoms/, without compromise: > 0. The freedom to run the program as they wish, for any purpose. > 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does > their computing as they wish. > 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so they can help others. > 3. The freedom to distribute copies of their modified versions to > others. Some GNU GPL licenses guarantee some specific certain freedoms, but GNU Project shall not guarantee anything to users. It is creation, things can go wrong, servers can go down, there shall be no guarantee by GNU project. If you mention any type of guarantees you would need to mention "by what" exactly you would guarantee it. GNU GPL license guarantees certain specific freedoms and it guarantees it by the law. However, so many laws exists on this world, that its real guarantee cannot be ensured by anything. It is more a type of friendly agreement than enforcable legality. And if some software of GNU project is licensed by some other free software license, I am not sure if that would be compatible with those four guaranteed four freedoms. Further, explaining four freedoms in some short manner deviates from the actual thought and idea that is explained here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html You cannot just shorten the idea that has to be communicated to the public and assume it is self-evident. Further, there are no warranties by GNU GPL license, while certain freedoms by license are guaranteed by law, if you say that you wish GNU project to guarantee for those four freedoms your are legally jeopardizing the GNU project, putting it at legal risks, finally you are trying to make a "social" contract. Legally, it makes no sense at all. Friendly, it is not necessary for GNU project, as all those issues have been handled long time ago. Let me comment more: > The GNU Project adopts policies that encourage and enable developers > to actively defend user freedom. Vague definition of "policies" opens the door to all kinds of deviations. > These policies include using /copyleft licenses/, designed to ensure > that users’ freedoms cannot be stripped off, when appropriate. They include, but not exclude many other unspoken policies that you have not mentioned there, so why not be right now very transparent? Did you mention "policies"? So where are those "policies"? The free software philosophy is not based on policies. It is based on very much social activity of agreeing to each other and by those basic fundamental principles of agreement people come together, they join and create free software. There is no need to engage into any kind of policing or policies. > Besides upholding the Four Essential Freedoms, the GNU Project pays > attention and responds to new threats to users' freedom as they > arise. GNU project is there to make a free operating system and its operation is based on free software philosophy. While there are many new threats to users' freedom, main purpose of GNU project is to provide free operating system which purpose is being fulfilled. To enforce "social" contract so that "GNU project" must respond to new threats to users' freedom is way too much coercive. GNU project worked since long time by friendly agreements, spoken or unspoken. It works now, as of today, very well by agreements, there is no need to enforce onto people anything. It is not a government. What you are here proposing is prime example of collectivism versus individualism. GNU project is not based on collectivism theory. That is when smaller group of people are trying to impose certain rules for majority. That is exactly what you are imposing here. It is based on individiualism. That is much more liberal and freedom oriented. Reference https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-collectivism-and-vs-individualism/ In GNU project we let people individually decide how they wish to contribute and we allow them to contribute software or other activities. We do not impose any rules, policies or contracts onto them. > * The GNU Project collaborates with the broader free software community > > Free software extends beyond the GNU Project, which works with > companion free software projects that develop key components of the > GNU System. The GNU Project aims to extend the reach of free > software to new fields. I do not think it is good to coerce community into something you think it should be done, whereby you have not get their consents. "broader" free software community is not defined well, then it is open to interpretations. Placing terms not well defined into any social contract put the people in power into better position, that is contradictory to principles of "users' freedom". It is contradictory to principles of individualism that GNU project welcomes everybody' contributions, and that now GNU project shall collaborate with "broader" free software community. It is not well defined, not well written, who knows what you wish to say here. I do not know. Do you mean maybe "open source" community? What is "broader" free software community? > * The GNU Project welcomes contributions from all and everyone That was clear since beginning. > The GNU Project wants to give everyone the opportunity of > contributing to its efforts on any of the many tasks that require > work. It welcomes all contributors, regardless of their gender, > ethnicity, sexual orientation, level of experience, or any other > personal characteristics. It commits to providing a harassment-free > experience for all contributors. That is already clear and was clear since decades. Jean
