Slashdot Mirror
Debian Can Now Amend Social Contract, DFSG
An anonymous reader writes "The Debian Project, creators of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, has voted to allow amendments to their Social Contract and Free Software Guidelines, as long as the developers agree with a 3:1 majority. The full text of the various amendments can be found in the original call for votes. Debian developer and XFree86 packager Branden Robinson has already proposed an amendment to the Social Contract that removes the requirement to maintain an archive for non-free software or "contrib" software (free software that depends on non-free software to work). Debian could still maintain this archive, but would no longer be required to do so. The proposal also updates the Social Contract to clearly require all works in Debian to meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines, not just software, which had come up repeatedly in the discussions over the non-free "GNU Free Documentation Licence". Both of these updates have been under consideration for some time, but were waiting on the ratification of the amendment procedure. The Debian Project voted on this amendment using their modified Condorcet voting procedure, which allows voters to rank the choices in order of preference, eliminating the "lesser of two evils" effect common to simple majority voting."
This move will really help to advance the speed with which debian can move forward, insofar as its "licensing"( if you can call it that ) goals are concerned.
What's really interesting here is that this moves them a little closer to the way the Gentoo people operate. Take a look at Their Social Contract for comparison purposes.
However, this is one of the things that has allways appealed to me about Debian. I use Debian for precisely that reason.
I long ago satisfied myself that Debian did at the very least a sufficient job of vetting the programs in their distro. I think of it as delegating that imprtant job. So, to a great degree, I know I can build a Debian/stable and set up a cron job to apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and be reasonably sure I'm up to date.
If Debian were to change this aspect of their opertion I would need to reconsider using that distro for the jobs I do. Principally, I use Debian for machines inside the firewall which just need to work. I don't need bleeding edge software, nor do I need to mop up the resulting pools of blood.
I know a lot of folks who make the similar complaint about Debian, and my response has allways been the same. You have literally dozens of distro's to select from. If Debian isn't giving you what you want, find another distro. Of course this is selfish, Debian does exactly what I want it to do, and I really would hate for that to change.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
You would wish that some distro would have its social contract be "To produce a great distribution with the latest software that is stable". Succinct, and what it should be all about.
...well, get involved in same.
If I wanted politics, i'd
I suppose I won't ever be using Debian, given my constraints (I tried it once - packages were way too old for my taste) but I wish someone would take the above to heart.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Why should an idea "get old"? Surely the ideals behind Free Software, insofar as their ground assumptions remain true, are timeless? You either agree with them, or you don't.
What you mean to say is that you have grown tired of these ideals.
Personally, I still feel as strongly about the FS ideals as when I first read GNU's philosophy documents. If they didn't stick to these ideals, the whole fabric of the FS community would disintegrate.
I wonder how you can grow tired of them though, especially if you have woody installed. Do you not see that woody is a direct result of these ideals, that facilitate the development of a system that provides such freedoms, not only in the liberal sense, but also in terms of providing new opportunities to those who, in the 'real' world suffer inequal opportunities. If it weren't for the availability of a completely free system based upon open standards that is guaranteed to remain Free, the only way to ensure that digital media remain accessible would be to constantly legislate to make people use open formats, and of course every day we see why FS people are so right when companies implement more proprietary schemes that deny access.
A firm committment to FS ideals, and a management structure carefully scrutinised by a collection of computer scientists, philosophers, psychologists and whoever else looks after Debian is absolutely the best thing a distribution community could hope for.
Honestly, though, I'm tired of all this "we hate software if it's not free", and "GNU/"-everything cr4p. To each his own, I guess, but it gets kinda old after a while.
As we have seen from the SCO case, being anal about licensing and redistribution terms is unfortunately necessary. Better be safe than sorry.
signatures pending - ansa@kos.to - (dont mail there)
Compare it to the current situtation, where the same maintainers use the same keyring and the same servers and the same development boxes and the same mailing lists and the same archive maintenance facilities and the same build daemon infrastructure.
In other words, no, nobody would seriously consider users being able to install non-Free software resulting in Debian not being "100% Free Software". That's somewhat akin to saying that Debian isn't "100% Free Software" because our package tools are capable of installing non-Free software, and because our compilers can compile non-Free software.
To understand what the change actually *means*, you need to understand the vast amount of resources that goes into putting Debian together. The non-Free repositories available on some Debian mirrors piggyback on this infrastructure, and what's being proposed is removing that.
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
And to make my jest even more serious...
There is a lot of noise going on as of late regarding GPL vs. SCO, GPL vs. BSD-license, copylefts, copyrights, patents, etc...
I'll admit that i'm ignorant to a lot of this, maybe blissfully so. Though i can read a lot of posts and reactions of people in debates (i see mainly BSD vs. GPL license wars here and on Usenet, usually from both sides since i use both FreeBSD and Debian) and see that a lot of other people might be as half-cocked clueless as me, i feel like i *should* know and understand it all.
It nags at me, i feel obligated to pursue it, but damn.... I just can't keep myself interested in licensing and stuff long enough to get anywhere.
Am i wrong? Or is it best to be left to those with the abilities for this thing?
do() || do_not();
Like voting? More reasearch (mine) on what the "best" system is.
Condorcet doesn't always make the most people the happiest, but it's nicely impervious to several things that can go wrong with elections.
Start Running Better Polls
IMO this mission lies with the Debian derivative rather than with Debian. Like Libranet and Knoppix, for example.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
But keep in mind that Richard's goal wasn't just good software; he was also mourning the loss of a community that he felt had been caused by software becoming unfree. The community is just as much a goal as the software.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
To make your jest serious: This is the trail that Richard Stallman proceeded down in about 1984. He wanted good software, and felt that the complications of copyright (and the business model that usually came along with copyright) made good software so much more difficult to produce.
Kinda ironic how much time and effort that should be going toward writing software is now consumed by the game of armchair copyright lawyer.
I want good software, and am sick and tired of having to pass on the right solution because it doesn't pass the purity test, or it is infected with a viral license, or it isn't free (or Free (or Phree)) enough, or it is "tainted", or it undermines our whole economic system, or
Enough with the licenses already. Personally I prefer the No problem Bugroff license. (mostly because it wastes less space in the source files than the GPL (or even MIT) licenses), but have adopted the following as a general rule:
The more fanatic someone is about software licensing, the more likely that their software isn't worth bothering with.
This applies equally to the BSA jackals and the GNU/Hippies. It turns out to be a pretty reliable guide.
Look. Debian is good, Debian is great, it IS my favorite linux distribution. Sticking to free software is GOOD.
However...
having packages for non-free stuff is good, and NECESSARY, as well. Yes, anyone can make them.. but it really helps having a central repository. IN the real business world, you can only take the need for freedom so far. I love Debian servers, but at some point there is non-free stuff I *need* to run.
Further... I'm sure everyone has said it before, but Debian really NEEDS to get it's stable releases more often, or at least more current. Stable is WAY behind the curve.. to the point where the benefit of running a common server on stable is almost gone now... I have to build everything manually.
Perhaps paring down the set of core software required to be well put together to call it stable?
"Just use testing, it's stable" is fine and dandy.. except security fixes don't come out in time.... again defeating the purpose.
So.. debian continue sto be awesome, for sure.. but I really, really wish they would focus a bit more and get more stable releases out more often.
I am very, very close to not being able to use debian any more internally because it creates too much work, compared to something sleazy like redhat.
How about xfree? Last time i checked, xfree was STILL at 4.2.1
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
I see the users of Debian to be the creators of these free and non-free derivative distributions, and the users that are drawn into Linux through them. Bruce mentions two of those distros, but Xandros is the one that specifically comes to my mind.
(Disclaimer: I am a hardware engineer, and don't really mess much with the innards of software. I just want an OS that is clean and works.)
The Xandros distribution was and is very appealing to me because of its ease of use and installation (like Lindows), but it doesn't have as many of the downsides of the other "easy to use" Linux disto (Lindows). It was also very important to me to have the ability to easily expand beyond what the commercial package offered, and apt-get was the program that I felt would provide this.
After considering Xandros for the past year, however, and realizing that I don't truly need Crossover Office at home (I need WineX, but free software already covers my business application needs), I decided to "take the plunge" and start directly with Debian. I built my first Linux machine using Debian last weekend.
So, I guess, I am a Debian "user". I read and agreed to their social contract before I chose their software. I use Linux because of Debian.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Actually I do it the opposite. If someone pays me, then I'll use the GPL. But stuff that I do on my free time on weekends because it's fun, that I give away with as few strings as a possibly can.
If someone doesn't like it, then can always pay me to give them a GPL licensed copy of my stuff...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Bruce, you people (debian) have ignored usability issues for years. Debian has literally been the poster boy for Free Software arrogance and indifference towards the end-user's need for usable, consistant software that let's them get stuff done with a minimum of fuss. 7 years later, Debian still doesn't have a graphical installer. Does software created with those kinds of values really need to be forced on schoolchildren in Extrademura?
If Debian followers lobby politicians to replace Windows with their software, then they have earned an obligation to make that software work for the people who will be forced to use it. IMO if Debian proper passes the buck on usability, it doesn't deserve a place on the desktop, derivitive or otherwise.
I believe in the concept of Open Source, but I will not stand idly by while those in the FOSS community deprive end users of the Freedom of Usability. In my opinion, a public license that protects this freedom is long overdue and any restriction it enacts against those who would rob end-users of that freedom to be morally justified.
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico
Ergonomica Auctorita Illico!
So, what are you doing posting drivel about people hating software? Change my view to see pounded posts, oh yes there it is:
Honestly, though, I'm tired of all this "we hate software if it's not free", and "GNU/"-everything cr4p. To each his own, I guess, but it gets kinda old after a while.
Joe, baby, this is a thread about the Debian Social Contract. If you don't want to listen to people talk about putting their resources towards free software instead of promoting non free software, what are you doing in this thread? Did you want to piss people off and call them "elitists" for worrying about such issues? You logged onto a Debian thread and told people to stay away from Debian? What exactly are you trying to contribute to this conversation besides insults?
Have you been drinking? Why the rants about mutt and pine?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.