Do the proponents of GNU ‘Social contract’ value its paragraph about ‘harassment’ above the freedom-related ones? (was: A GNU “social contract”?)

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
> Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>> Andreas Enge <andreas@enge.fr> wrote:
>>> Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
>>>> Instead of making GNU more welcoming place by lessening the burden of 
>>>> formalities, you in fact propose GNU to withdraw deeper into itself by 
>>>> inventing ideology-driven ‘contracts’
>>>
>>> I do not see how the aim of creating a harassment-free environment could be 
>>> construed as making GNU a less welcoming place...
>>
>> In other words, the only real aim of your ‘social contract’ is to impose 
>> that last paragraph about ‘harassment’ on everyone, while all the software 
>> freedom stuff is just a decoration that should not be taken seriously?
>
> sorry, this is plain nonsense.

I am glad to hear that.  Yet the rest of your letter keeps convincing me, that 
my suspects were not groundless.

> The document contains four points. You and other question the last point.

I have no idea, who is that mystical ‘other’, but no, _I_ did not question it!

> In a reply, I defend the last point. How you can logically conclude that the 
> first three points are "decoration" is beyond me.

No, it is definitely not beyond you, as youʼve just explained it in one simple 
sentence!

Upon reading objections to the whole idea of ideological-driven ‘contracts’, 
youʼve rushed to _defend its last point only_, despite it was not questioned.  
Thatʼs exactly how I concluded, that it is the most important point for you.


Now, Iʼd be grateful if @ludo@gnu.org too would answer the question put into 
subject line.

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature