Re: A GNU “social contract”?

[Jean Louis]

* Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> [2019-10-26 14:09]:
> Hi Ludo,
> 
> On Fri, 2019-10-25 at 15:56 +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> > Looking at the form of Debian’s Social Contract, its conciseness and
> > clarity, I was inspired to think about a few points that would summarize
> > GNU’s mission and workings in a way that would hopefully be rather
> > consensual among maintainers (I’d like to draw attention to the six
> > headings, not necessarily on the detailed wording.)
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> I do like it. Thanks for just writing up a first draft. The headings
> seem pretty good as a starting point:
> 
>    * GNU is software that respects the freedom of computer users
>    * GNU licenses uphold user freedom
>    * GNU is a consistent operating system and set of applications
>    * GNU cares for computer user freedom beyond software
>    * GNU collaborates with the broader free software community
>    * GNU welcomes contributions from all and everyone
> 
> Although I wish we could combine some, 6 seems a bit much, 4 would be a
> much nicer/smaller number :) Points 1 (freedom), 2 (uphold freedom) and
> 4 (beyond software freedom) could maybe be merged together somehow?
> 
> I appreciate the links to some of the existing documents in the
> explanations. But having them in kind of defeats the purpose of a small
> and concise social contract that should imho be self-explanatory.
> 
> There is one thing I think it doesn't really capture. But maybe that is
> on purpose? That is that GNU has grown beyond just being about what the
> GNU manifesto originally described. Do we want the social contract to
> be about the narrow interpretation of the the GNU operating system, or
> about GNU as the core of the Free Software Movement? The first is
> definitely easier, the second is definitely harder. It might be that
> this will only work if we take as small a definition as possible. But I
> think we should try a bit to show it is about a broad movement.

What a nonsense.

"Social Contract" is now being discussed as something as "adopted". I
do not see it is "adopted".

It is wrong in its definition, from its definition of the term "social
contract".

The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat
social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques
Rousseau that discussed this concept.

I would like to exclude French narrow and middle-age thinking from the
GNU project.

"Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have
consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their
freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision
of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or
maintenance of the social order." -- thus I would not like to invite
people to GNU project with any type of a French based middle-aged
surrendering of their freedoms to whatever authority of small group of
people who are now proposing the "GNU Social Contract".

-- 
Thanks,
Jean Louis