[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract
coadde at riseup.net
Wed Jun 8 13:22:00 GMT 2016
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:
> - "Parabola GNU/Linux" -> "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre"
> Ok, I guess. Still, it should have been discusssed.
> - "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.
> Then, a bit over a month ago, Emulatorman made a change, which I also
> recall no discussion of. He changed "our community is democratic in
> its essence" to "adhocratic in its essence". A one-word change, but
> quite a significant one!
1) The distribution has been officially named as Parabola
GNU/Linux-libre and it doesn't needs a discussion.
2) I'm not agree so-called "Linux" distributions should be named as
"Linux" in our Social Contract, even if it is the factually named by them.
3) I'm not agree about FOSS (even it isn't included in our Social
4) It is a free as in freedom distribution that follows the GNU FSDG,
therefore we shouldn't support "Open Source" goal implicitly, even if
"Arch Linux" is the factually named by them.
5) Democracy doesn't works. Adhocracy is the way for Parabola.
> # Separate contracts for separate operating systems? #
> Coadde also made a variant of the Social Contract for Parabola
> GNU/kNuBSD-fire. Which is good! The current Social contract is about
> the operating system.
> However, I think that the Social Contract should be about the project.
> About Parabola, not Parabola GNU/Linux-libre. This would obviate the
> separate contract for the kNuBSD system. This was part of my 2013
> proposal, and is still kind-of present in Emulatorman's proposal.
+1 it's right, is better that our Social Contract should be about the
project, no a specific system (and it should be called as Parabola
> # "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.
Again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects the GNU FSDG
in the name confusion.
> # Name of the operating system #
> Cf. https://wiki.parabola.nu/Nomenclature
> Related to that, when the Social Contract discusses the operating
> system(s) that we make, I don't believe it should do so by name.
> The original wording was:
>> 4. Parabola GNU/Linux and ArchLinux: Parabola is the free version of
> In my proposal, I changed that to:
>> 4. Parabola and Arch Linux: We will produce an operating system
>> that is a Free version of Arch Linux, and possibly other
>> Arch-based systems.
> Emulatorman partially reverted that to:
>> 4. Parabola and Arch**: Parabola is a Free version of Arch, and
>> possibly other Arch-based systems.
> Again, if we are being precise, then Parabola GNU/Linux-libre is the
> Free version of Arch.
> But I oppose saying "Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" in the Social Contract,
> because it is overly specific. The name of the operating system we
> make shouldn't be part of the Social Contract; it is an implementation
> detail, not an essential detail.
> What if tomorrow we decided that it would be better to use a different
> libre fork of Linux than Linux-libre? Should our Social Contract have
> to be ammended to allow that? No, that would be absurd.
I mean it again, i'm not agree about FOSS because it doesn't respects
the GNU FSDG in the name confusion.
> # Free Art Movement? #
> I feel kinda silly saying this, but: I'm not familiar with a Free Art
> Movement. And even if I'm silly for that, we shouldn't assume that
> the reader of the Social Contract is more informed than me. And
> searching for it yields results that I don't think are related.
> I am familiar with the Free Culture movement. How is this different?
> With the Free Software Movement, we have a link to Wikipedia, in case
> the reader is unfamiliar with it. We have details on what that
> The same isn't true for Free Art. It just says "it does not provide
> any type of support for non-free art." and tacks on "and art" after
> "software." With no real details. It references the FSDG for
> software, then just says "and art". What does it mean to "not provide
> … support for non-free art."?
I prefer our Social Contract could means about free software, documents
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Dev