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

[bruce@pixar.com (Bruce Perens)]

From: Chris Fearnley <cjf@netaxs.com>
> I think this type of document is very important.  Thanks for getting
> the ball rolling, Bruce!

This is, by the way, a preliminary to a new "Debian Manifesto" that
says more about what Debian is for. I think our contract with the Linux
and free software community is part of defining that manifesto.

> "Social contract" doesn't give the sense of the document at
> all.  "Debian's Statement of Commitment to Free Software" sounds better
> to me.

The reason for Debian to be free software is so that our users can do
cool stuff with it without running into legal problems. I would prefer
not to make the document sound more like a "Pledge of Allegiance to Free
Software", lest we be seen to be marching after ideology regardless of the
end product and the users. The document is a contract we offer to our
community about how we will behave with that community. We offer it to
the people, we do not lay it upon the altar of free software.

> 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.

It is not a legal document, it's a social one. Thus, I eschew the extremely
careful language of a legal document in favor of something short and simple
that communicates our philosophy without boring or intimidating the reader.

> We support the needs of our users for integration with diverse computing
> environments [...]

This shows some improvement. I re-wrote it as:

We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
community. We will place their interests first in our priorities. We
will support the needs of our users for operation in many different
kinds of computing environment. We won't object to commercial software
that is intended to run on Debian systems, and we'll allow others to
create value-added distributions containing both Debian and commercial
software, without any fee from us. To support these goals, we will
provide an integrated system of high-quality, 100% free software, with
no legal restrictions that would prevent these kinds of use.

> [With regard to #3 and #4, first they are nearly the same.

I could merge them into one paragraph, but I doubt this would make
them clearer. I was thinking of breaking up other paragraphs that
combine too many different ideas. Perhaps if the document evolves some
more...

> 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"?

I must not be communicating effectively in those paragraphs. Of course
I was thinking of cryptography, I would have expected the implication
to be clear, does it really not come across? France restricts use of
encryption. The U.S. restricts the export of some encryption software.
Many other nations have similar laws.

> And in such a case (do I understand this correctly) we intend to distribute
> the software regardless?

Yes, we will distribute cryptography software from nations where it is legal
to distribute it and use it.

Regarding the rest of your changes, I have not accepted them into the document
at this time. I think in a lot of cases they are primarily stylistic change,
and I simply have a different style. If there's something you feel really
strongly about, you should argue those issues individually.

	Thanks

	Bruce
-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP   Bruce@Pixar.com   510-215-3502
Finger bruce@master.Debian.org for PGP public key.
PGP fingerprint = 88 6A 15 D0 65 D4 A3 A6  1F 89 6A 76 95 24 87 B3 


--
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 .