Debian's Statement of Commitment to Free Software (was: social contract)

[Chris Fearnley <cjf@netaxs.com>]

'Bruce Perens wrote:'

I think this type of document is very important.  Thanks for getting
the ball rolling, Bruce!

But have patience, I still think it is a draft and I would not vote on
it at this time.

I think the language used in the introduction and some of the numbered
guidelines is weak.  I think we should use more powerful words like
"commitment" instead of the more passive "promise".

I'd also like to address the issue Guy rose about the name of the
document.  "Social contract" doesn't give the sense of the document at
all.  "Debian's Statement of Commitment to Free Software" sounds better
to me.

Another problem is the lack of definition for the words "program",
"software", or what Linux people call a "package".  I did not address
that issue at this time.

I have included another draft to try to accomplish some of these
improvements.  I have interleaved some commentary which has neither ">"
(the original) nor "|" (my changes) markers in it.  Such commentary is
[bracketed] off.

>We are Software In The Public Interest, a non-profit organization and
|producers of the Debian GNU/Linux system. This is our statement of
|our commitment to free software.

|We are committed to keeping our GNU/Linux system based entirely upon
|free software.
>As there are many implementations of free software, we include the
>guidelines we use to determine if software is "free" below. We will
>support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but
>we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software. 

|We are committed to contributing to the free-software community.
|When we write new
>components of the Debian system, we will license them as free software.
>We will make the best free-software system we can, so that free software
>will be widely distributed and easily used. We will feed back bug-fixes,
>improvements, user requests etc. to the "upstream" authors of software
|included in our system. We have made a publicly accessible bug-tracking
|system to assist in this effort (http://www.debian.org/Bugs).

[The next statement has lost its original attempt to qualify our
support for commercial software.  I think my replacement addresses
those issues better.  First here is Bruce's latest cut at the task:]

>We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
>community. We will place their interests first in our priorities.

[And my attempt to replace that paragraph:]

|We are committed to our user community.  We support the needs of our
|users for integration with diverse computing environments, for use of
|commercial software, and for use of Debian-based systems distributed by
|others.  We accomplish these goals in part by providing an
|infrastructure of high-quality free software that does not restrict any
|such use of the system.

|In support of these commitments we have established the following
|guidelines for inclusion of software into the main Debian GNU/Linux
|archive.

|Debian Free Software Guidelines:

[I think the categories that constitute each guideline are slightly
vague.  To help clarify this I have added a two or three word title to
each paragraph.  After doing this I realized that #1 and #7 are very
closely related to redistribution.  Also, #6 is very close to these
two.  Restructure?]

|1. Redistribution and modification of packages.
|   All software included in our main archive must be redistributable
|   by anyone. The license for the
>   software must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
>   them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
>   original software. If the license restricts a source file from being
>   distributed in modified form, it must allow "patch files" to be
|   distributed with the source for the explicit purpose of modifying
|   the software
>   at build time. The license may require derived works to carry a
>   different name than the original software.

|2. Reselling and fees.
>   The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving
>  away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
>  containing programs from several different sources. The license may not
>  require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

[With regard to #3 and #4, first they are nearly the same.  Moreover,
why are we making exceptions in the case of laws?  Is there really
software that says "If you are a Hakken-Krakian, you may not use this
software"?  And in such a case (do I understand this correctly) we
intend to distribute the software regardless?  I question the virtue of
explictly allowing such software as a matter of policy.

I think we should delete #3 (or at least remove the unless clause).  I
would remove the unless clause from #4, too.  Or better yet say
something even more general: "The license must not restrict anyone from
making use of the program in any way they see fit".  Period.

Perhaps, you are trying to address licenses that have disclaimers
regarding the illegal use of the software?  If so, maybe we can address
this more directly?]

|3. Discrimination of users.
>   The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
>    persons unless their use would violate a law of the country from
>    which the software is distributed.

|4. Usage of software.
|   The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
|   in a specific field of endeavor unless such use would violate the
>   laws of the country from which the software is distributed. For example,
>   it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
>   being used for genetic research.

|5. Source code and distribution.
>   The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
>   source as well as binary form.

|6. Rights for users.
>   The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
>   program is redistributed without the need for execution of an
>   additional license by those parties.

|7. Redistributors' rights.
>   The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
>   being part of a Debian system. If a person extracts the program from
>   Debian and uses it or distributes it without Debian, that person and
>   any people to whom the program is redistributed should have the same
>   rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system.

|8. Implications to other software.
>   The license must not place restrictions on other software packages that
>   are distributed on the same software medium. For example, the license
>   must not insist that all other programs distributed with it must be
>   free software.
>
>The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that we
>consider "free".

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley          |  Linux/Internet Consulting
cjf@netaxs.com                   |  Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf       |  Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf  |  "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . Trouble? 
e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .