Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Samuel Thibault]

Jean Louis, le lun. 28 oct. 2019 18:06:35 +0530, a ecrit:
> "Social Contract" is now being discussed as something as "adopted". I
> do not see it is "adopted".

Nobody said it was "adopted". Nobody even said such a thing would have
to be called "social contract". Nobody said it had to be written by
a small group of people and be imposed on everybody. Some discussion
happens here, but it doesn't intends to impose anything.

> It is wrong in its definition, from its definition of the term "social
> contract".
> 
> The term takes its name from The Social Contract

I don't think it does, I have never seen any reference to that in
anything talking about the Debian Social Contract, and not in the 1997
discussions leading to it either. Actually it took me a bit of time to
even just realize what reference you were talking about (even if I am
French and know about Rousseau's work). If we had to abandon anything
that has the same title as something else in the world, we would run out
of words. Anyway, once more nobody said such a thing had to be called
that way, it was just a way to refer to something that has been used in
another project, and not meaning it would have to be implemented the
same in the GNU project.

Samuel