From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30684 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2004 17:35:26 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 10 Sep 2004 17:35:26 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1C5pIz-0004jl-UW for arch-gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:35:26 +0000 Received: (qmail 23251 invoked by uid 89); 10 Sep 2004 17:35:19 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 28260 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2004 17:35:19 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 10:35:14 -0700 Organization: Sometimes Message-ID: References: <20040824141120.GA9931@gentoo.org> <20040901073242.GA8228@gentoo.org> <200409011331.24838.pauldv@gentoo.org> <20040909122534.GA8423@gentoo.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1250 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-66-58.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table) Sender: news Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: Proposal: Social Contract change & What is "Gentoo" ? X-Archives-Salt: 0a7e927b-0fc0-4892-b3be-85327f8e3d9f X-Archives-Hash: 287b99623e1ea3dff7d523fa62476523 Sven Vermeulen posted <20040909122534.GA8423@gentoo.org>, excerpted below, on Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:25:35 +0200: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~swift/contract.html > > I've changed the wording in the draft to read: > > Gentoo is the collection of: > > * free knowledge such as documentation and metadata about > concepts/domains relevant to operating systems and their components, > contributed by various developers to the Gentoo project > * free software developed by various Gentoo developers and > contributed to the Gentoo project > > > Is this an improvement? Answers my objection, definitely. I did notice the contrasted wording between the two clauses, * free knowledge... contributed by /various/ /developers/.. * free software... developed by /various/ /Gentoo/ /developers/.. Was the omission of the word /Gentoo/ in the first case intentional? More precisely, is there a policy difference between documentation/metadata, and software, such that contributions are accepted from a wider pool (lacking the Gentoo specifier in various developers) in the case of the former, as contrasted with the latter? This is admittedly on the level of nit-picking, here. I just saw the parallel in the wording and wondered why the /Gentoo/ specifier was included in the second case but not the first. Unless there's a policy difference (and I can see where there could be, documentation/metadata doesn't quite have the security implications of executable code, after all), I'd expect them to be parallel. I'm just not familiar enough yet with Gentoo policy to know if that difference is deliberate or not, and reading it, that's the question that came to my mind. In any case, it's certainly better to my way of thinking than the former, as the question of scope of claim is addressed, now. As well, you did it in fewer words than my proposal. Concise is good (and not one of my strongest points)! =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list