[Dev] [consensus][due: 2016-06-13]: New version for Parabola Social Contract

André Silva emulatorman at riseup.net
Thu Jun 9 19:16:14 GMT 2016

On 06/09/2016 02:26 AM, Luke Shumaker wrote:
>  2. Maybe they don't have moral authority to insist on it, but Arch
>     developers insist on it anyway.  And Parabola maintaining a good
>     relationship with them is a good idea.
> Or, less simply, we could use the following as the opeing bit of
> clause 4:
>     4.  **Parabola and Arch Linux**: We will produce an operating system
>         that is a Free version of the GNU/Linux system [Arch
>         Linux](http://www.archlinux.org/),
> It's a little wordy, but I'd approve of it.

Yes, you're right in that point, however Parabola is maintaining a good
relationship with FSF, GNU project and Richard Stallman too and they
insist we use 'Arch GNU/Linux' instead.

In some words, if we put in the Social Contract 'Arch Linux', we will
maintain a good relationship with Arch guys, if we put 'Arch GNU/Linux',
we will maintain a good relationship with FSF, GNU project and Richard
Stallman. What should we use? good question and big problem.

New proposal for clause 4 need more work yet. You and me know that
Parabola is the project and Parabola GNU/Linux-libre is the former
Parabola operating system, however a new user or newbie don't know about
it if we don't explain with details here.

Another point is that Parabola ARM is very different than Arch ARM
project, Parabola ARM is based on them, however the main structure is
based on main Arch project (eg. my kernels are adapted with the same
structure than Arch project to give support to multiples kernels
installed in the same machine for future bootloaders (eg. GRUB and
Extlinux) instead of Arch ARM project that is adapted just for U-Boot to
use one kernel installed per system).

Even, i have plans to begin Parabola GNU+Hurd project based on Arch
GNU+Hurd after my conference about Parabola at FISL17. Otherwise, we
should clarify points about Free Culture Works in Parabola too and it
needs work too.

Therefore our Social Contract needs more points to explains with details
about those points without contradictions.

Otherwise, shouldn't all clauses in our Social Contract be revised under
a lawyer too? Maybe FSF or Fundatia Ceata (through Tiberiu) could help
us on it.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160609/25937738/attachment.sig>

More information about the Dev mailing list