| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
viewpoint, non-modifiable license texts to invariant sections, adding cover texts and sorting text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fix an ambiguity in the word "their" in the support sentence.
|
|
This brings it to using the present tense for everything but item 4.
Item 4 just doesn't read right (IMO) except in the future tense.
|
|
|
|
It flip-flopped between future and present tense.
It flip-flopped between speaking of a single product and speaking of
several products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Arch Linux"''
|
|
I think it reads more clearly this way. The inserted bit is
against non-libre software{+; other libre software projects are to be
cooperated with, not competed with+}. Parabola will strive to support
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-June/004060.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Category:About ]] The social contract of Parabola GNU/kNuBSD-fire is a commitment of the distribution with the libre softw..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
"ArchLinux"->"ArchGNU/Linux"
|
|
|
|
|
|
posting it here ("Parabola; change it back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:24:26 -0300,
Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> "Luke T. Shumaker" <lukeshu at sbcglobal.net> writes:
> > > should we specify "arch and derivatives" on item 4?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you want it to say.
>
> i mean if we produce libre repositories for arch and it's derivatives,
> like making a libre version of archmobile (arm* architecture), shouldn't
> the contract also expand onto the derivatives (promise to follow
> development process, etc).
Oh, ok. I agree with that. I think. Now I'm actually questioning
how much I agree with item 4.
To break it down:
4. **Parabola and Arch Linux**:
a. Parabola will produce an operating system that is a Free version
of [Arch Linux][3].
b. We provide repositories and installation images without any
non-free software.
c. We respect Arch's KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple, Stupid)
d. and its development process.
e. In that sense, Parabola will always maintain retro compatibility
with Arch Linux so as to help Free already working
installations.
I'm concerned with items d and e. I'm confused what "In that sense,"
means in item e. I'm also confused by item d--how much do we follow
their development process now?
* We use libretools' libremakepkg instead of devtools' archbuild
* We have almost none of the workflow integration between the repos
and the PKGBUILD tracker. (though I'm working on that)
* We have none of the access control, wrt which hackers can publish
where.
* We have none of the review process before packages end up in the
main repos.
And honestly, I think that all but the first of these are things we
could work on.
And all of this differs for the derivatives. Arch Hurd seems pretty
similar to Parabola GNU/Linux in that regard, but Arch Linux ARM has
a fairly different process. If we ended up with an ARM port, would we
have to adopt the Plug distributed build system? Not that that would
necessarily be a bad idea, but should that really be part of the
social contract?
I think we should ditch mentioning the development process, and
instead focus on the resulting software.
Perhaps:
4. We will produce an operating system that is a Free version of
[Arch Linux][3], and possibly other Arch-based systems. We will
provide repositories and installation media without any non-free
software. All Parabola operating systems will be backward
compatible with the system they are based on, as to help Free
already working installations. We will respect the design
philosophies of the systems ours are based on, to reduce friction
from both developer and user viewpoints.
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
|
|
Sorry it took so long for me to reply, my heuristic mail filters
mis-categorized your reply, so I didn't see it.
At Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:23:34 -0300,
Nicolás Reynolds wrote:
> "Luke T. Shumaker" <lukeshu at sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
> > So last night/this morning, I threw up a "Nomenclature" page on the
> > wiki[0]. The page is mostly meant to be descriptive, not
> > prescriptive, but part of its purpose is to standardize.
> >
> > Then I looked at our Social Contract[1], and noticed that it is not
> > consistent with our nomenclature.
> >
> > Following is my proposal for a new version of the Social Contract.
> > The format is Markdown. MediaWiki's wiki-text sucks for email.
>
> +1 item 2 should also include documentation and other projects alongside
> repositories and packages.
- it. That includes our packages and repositories.
+ it. That includes our packages, repositories, documentation and
+ other efforts.
> should we specify "arch and derivatives" on item 4?
I'm not sure what you want it to say.
|
|
So last night/this morning, I threw up a "Nomenclature" page on the
wiki[0]. The page is mostly meant to be descriptive, not
prescriptive, but part of its purpose is to standardize.
Then I looked at our Social Contract[1], and noticed that it is not
consistent with our nomenclature.
Following is my proposal for a new version of the Social Contract.
The format is Markdown. MediaWiki's wiki-text sucks for email.
I've made it about the "Parabola project", not "Parabola GNU/Linux", and done
some copy-editing type bits. Notes:
* I use "Free Software", not "free software", and "Free" instead of "free" when
appropriate.
* The exception to the above is the phrase "non-free".
Other changes I think we should consider:
* I think that for the purpose of this document, we should normalize between
"Free" and "libre".
* We should add a bit about the Free Culture movement, which we sort-of also
support, to formalize our stance on that.
[0] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Nomenclature
[1] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract
Happy hacking,
~ Luke Shumaker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
of the distribution with the libre software community in general and its users in particular. It is because of this that..."
|
