[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract
emulatorman at riseup.net
Wed Jun 8 05:21:27 GMT 2016
Hi guys, i'm sending a copy of this email to libreplanet-discuss,
gnu-linux-libre and rms to get a better consensus for our Social
Contract since Parabola is a distro endorsed by FSF and our Social
Contract is a very important point to be discussed.
Note: Lukeshu , Coadde  and me (Emulatorman)  are Parabola devs.
Beginning of this consensus was in
It is our current Social Contract ->
It is our discussion about proposal for the new version ->
The next one, i'm responding some points about the proposals made for
the new version of Parabola Social Contract.
On 06/07/2016 10:16 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
> # What's going on with the official version? #
> In 2014-2015, Coadde made a series of edits to the official version.
> I remember no discussion of the changes.
> He did essentially several search/replaces:
> - "ArchLinux" -> "Arch" or "Arch GNU/Linux"
> Saying "Arch GNU/Linux" is wrong, it should be "Arch Linux".
> "Arch" is acceptable shorthand after the first use.
So, why FSF article about common distros  says "Arch GNU/Linux"?
In my opinion, we should do the same than FSF article for our Social
Contract to avoid the wrong name 'Linux' as operating system.
> # "Parabola" vs "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre", "Arch" vs "Arch Linux" #
> Cf. https://wiki.parabola.nu/Nomenclature
> Emulatorman had previously remarked that he didn't like saying "Arch
> Linux" in it, especially because we say "Parabola" (as opposed to
> "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre") in the same document. I think that
> comment is missing the point, and I don't like some of the wording
> that results from it.
> - "Parabola" is the project
> - "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" is the operating system that "Parabola"
> I was very careful with the wording in my proposal regarding this.
> The current social contract is about the operating system, but my
> proposal made it about the project.
> That is, "Parabola" as used in my draft of the Social Contract is
> *not* shorthand.
> In the social contract, we should be as clear and precise as
> possible. The operating system is called "Arch Linux". It is an
> unfortunate name that contributes to the Linux vs. GNU/Linux
> confusion, but that is what it is factually named. Note that in my
> wording, I wrote "Arch Linux" the first time it appears within a
> paragraph, but simply "Arch" after that. I believe that this is an
> acceptable compromise.
You say "we should be as clear and precise as possible". Put the
inappropriate name "Linux" as operating system of Arch gives people the
wrong idea and conveys a mistaken idea of the system's origin, history,
purpose, even if it is the factually named by the Arch devs. Parabola as
endorsed FSF distro shouldn't use it, mainly in the Social Contract.
There's an important point in the article "Why the ‘Linux system’ should
be called GNU/Linux"  that says: "Linux has been associated ever
since it was first coined with a philosophy that does not make a
commitment to the freedom to cooperate." Also, there is another
important point in the part "Name Confusion" of the Free System
Distribution Guidelines (GNU FSDG) article  that says: "this (in this
case Parabola) would promote a misunderstanding of what “GNU” means. GNU
is an operating system, typically used with Linux as the kernel, and
essentially all so-called “Linux” distributions are really GNU/Linux
distributions. In this scenario, both versions are GNU/Linux, and it
would be misleading to omit “GNU” from the name of one of them."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Dev