summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
AgeCommit message (Collapse)Author
2016-06-21Import suggestions from the consensusHEADmasterAndré Fabian Silva Delgado
2016-06-15remove deprecated filescoadde [Márcio Alexandre Silva Delgado]
2016-06-15add adhocratic as form of organizationproposals/lukeshu+consensuscoadde [Márcio Alexandre Silva Delgado]
2016-06-15fix democracy to consensus democracy, works of opinion to works stating a ↵coadde [Márcio Alexandre Silva Delgado]
viewpoint, non-modifiable license texts to invariant sections, adding cover texts and sorting text
2016-06-12Say "Arch (the GNU/Linux distribution)" per consensusproposals/lukeshuLuke Shumaker
2016-06-11Add an item about Free Culture. Make it item 2, bumping other items up.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-11Go back to saying "Free" instead of "libre"Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10Item 1: "don't" -> "do not". I think it reads better this way.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10reword item 1 a bit; say "non-libre" instead of "proprietary" the first time.Luke Shumaker
Fix an ambiguity in the word "their" in the support sentence.
2016-06-10Use the present tense for items 2 & 3.Luke Shumaker
This brings it to using the present tense for everything but item 4. Item 4 just doesn't read right (IMO) except in the future tense.
2016-06-10Have the first words of items 3&4 be Parabola['s] instead of Our/We.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10Reword item 1 to use a consistent tense and plurality.Luke Shumaker
It flip-flopped between future and present tense. It flip-flopped between speaking of a single product and speaking of several products.
2016-06-10Item 2: speak of parabola in the first person, not third.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10Reword the opening sentence to discus Parabola in the first person.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10In the body of item 4, replace ``Arch Linux'' with ``the GNU/Linux system ↵Luke Shumaker
"Arch Linux"''
2016-06-10Insert a clause into the sentence about only cometing with non-free SW.Luke Shumaker
I think it reads more clearly this way. The inserted bit is against non-libre software{+; other libre software projects are to be cooperated with, not competed with+}. Parabola will strive to support
2016-06-10Capitalize the M in "Free Software Movement"Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10Fix a grammar mistake.Luke Shumaker
2016-06-10Revise external links. ↵Luke Shumaker
https://lists.parabola.nu/pipermail/dev/2016-June/004060.html
2016-06-10Normalize on "libre" instead of "Free"Luke Shumaker
2016-04-30*synthetic* "democratic" -> "adhocratic"Emulatorman
2015-04-29*synthetic* "Arch GNU/Linux" -> "Arch" (in body only, not heading)Coadde
2014-03-06Created page with "{i18n|Parabola GNU/kNuBSD-fire Social Contract}} [[ ↵Coadde
Category:About ]] The social contract of Parabola GNU/kNuBSD-fire is a commitment of the distribution with the libre softw..."
2014-03-06*synthetic* "Arch (Linux kernel based)" -> "Arch GNU/Linux"Coadde
2014-03-06*synthetic* "ArchGNU/Linux" -> "Arch (Linux kernel based)"Coadde
2014-03-06*synthetic* "Parabola GNU/Linux"->"Parabola GNU/Linux-libre" ; ↵Coadde
"ArchLinux"->"ArchGNU/Linux"
2014-03-05*synthetic* BSD philosophyCoadde
2014-03-05*synthetic* Parabola GNU/kNuBSDCoadde
2013-11-09/* New version */ I changed the wording of item 4 from the email when ↵Lukeshu
posting it here ("Parabola; change it back.
2013-11-09/* New version */ Add a comma in the second point.Lukeshu
2013-11-09/* New version */ After all these months, a minor grammar fix :-/Lukeshu
2013-11-09Add proposed changes from back in JulyLukeshu
2013-07-28Re: [Dev] [RFC] rewording the Social ContractLuke Shumaker
At Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:24:26 -0300, Nicolás Reynolds wrote: > "Luke T. Shumaker" <lukeshu at sbcglobal.net> writes: > > > should we specify "arch and derivatives" on item 4? > > > > I'm not sure what you want it to say. > > i mean if we produce libre repositories for arch and it's derivatives, > like making a libre version of archmobile (arm* architecture), shouldn't > the contract also expand onto the derivatives (promise to follow > development process, etc). Oh, ok. I agree with that. I think. Now I'm actually questioning how much I agree with item 4. To break it down: 4. **Parabola and Arch Linux**: a. Parabola will produce an operating system that is a Free version of [Arch Linux][3]. b. We provide repositories and installation images without any non-free software. c. We respect Arch's KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple, Stupid) d. and its development process. e. In that sense, Parabola will always maintain retro compatibility with Arch Linux so as to help Free already working installations. I'm concerned with items d and e. I'm confused what "In that sense," means in item e. I'm also confused by item d--how much do we follow their development process now? * We use libretools' libremakepkg instead of devtools' archbuild * We have almost none of the workflow integration between the repos and the PKGBUILD tracker. (though I'm working on that) * We have none of the access control, wrt which hackers can publish where. * We have none of the review process before packages end up in the main repos. And honestly, I think that all but the first of these are things we could work on. And all of this differs for the derivatives. Arch Hurd seems pretty similar to Parabola GNU/Linux in that regard, but Arch Linux ARM has a fairly different process. If we ended up with an ARM port, would we have to adopt the Plug distributed build system? Not that that would necessarily be a bad idea, but should that really be part of the social contract? I think we should ditch mentioning the development process, and instead focus on the resulting software. Perhaps: 4. We will produce an operating system that is a Free version of [Arch Linux][3], and possibly other Arch-based systems. We will provide repositories and installation media without any non-free software. All Parabola operating systems will be backward compatible with the system they are based on, as to help Free already working installations. We will respect the design philosophies of the systems ours are based on, to reduce friction from both developer and user viewpoints. Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
2013-07-28Re: [Dev] [RFC] rewording the Social ContractLuke Shumaker
Sorry it took so long for me to reply, my heuristic mail filters mis-categorized your reply, so I didn't see it. At Sun, 07 Jul 2013 17:23:34 -0300, Nicolás Reynolds wrote: > "Luke T. Shumaker" <lukeshu at sbcglobal.net> writes: > > > So last night/this morning, I threw up a "Nomenclature" page on the > > wiki[0]. The page is mostly meant to be descriptive, not > > prescriptive, but part of its purpose is to standardize. > > > > Then I looked at our Social Contract[1], and noticed that it is not > > consistent with our nomenclature. > > > > Following is my proposal for a new version of the Social Contract. > > The format is Markdown. MediaWiki's wiki-text sucks for email. > > +1 item 2 should also include documentation and other projects alongside > repositories and packages. - it. That includes our packages and repositories. + it. That includes our packages, repositories, documentation and + other efforts. > should we specify "arch and derivatives" on item 4? I'm not sure what you want it to say.
2013-07-06[Dev] [RFC] rewording the Social ContractLuke Shumaker
So last night/this morning, I threw up a "Nomenclature" page on the wiki[0]. The page is mostly meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive, but part of its purpose is to standardize. Then I looked at our Social Contract[1], and noticed that it is not consistent with our nomenclature. Following is my proposal for a new version of the Social Contract. The format is Markdown. MediaWiki's wiki-text sucks for email. I've made it about the "Parabola project", not "Parabola GNU/Linux", and done some copy-editing type bits. Notes: * I use "Free Software", not "free software", and "Free" instead of "free" when appropriate. * The exception to the above is the phrase "non-free". Other changes I think we should consider: * I think that for the purpose of this document, we should normalize between "Free" and "libre". * We should add a bit about the Free Culture movement, which we sort-of also support, to formalize our stance on that. [0] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Nomenclature [1] https://wiki.parabolagnulinux.org/Parabola/GNU_Linux_Social_Contract Happy hacking, ~ Luke Shumaker
2013-07-06Rename to just "Parabola Social Contract"Luke Shumaker
2011-06-14fix a linkMtjm
2011-06-13*Empty MediaWiki Message*Encyclomundi
2011-06-13*Empty MediaWiki Message*Encyclomundi
2011-06-13Created page with "The social contract of Parabola GNU/Linux is a commitment ↵Encyclomundi
of the distribution with the libre software community in general and its users in particular. It is because of this that..."