I suspect that there is no such thing as a "GNU Social Contract"

[J.B. Nicholson]

fredomatic wrote:
> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> <https://wiki.gnu.tools/gnu:social-contract>.

I suspect that the response from Alfred M. Szmidt is correct -- there is no GNU 
Social Contract and what you're agreeing to is something bearing the GNU name and 
logo but made by a third party who does not speak for the GNU Project (such as 
Ludovic Courtès' proposal in 
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2019-10/msg00050.html ).

gnu.tools' current domain registrar (namecheap.com)[1] is not the same as gnu.org's 
current domain registrar[2] (gandi.net). gnu.tools' owner is not publicly listed in 
whois but gnu.org's organizational owner is publicly listed in whois. If I were keen 
to agree to Courtès' proposal I'd wonder why the gnu.tools domain exists, if GNU 
needs a wiki for the project why not host that wiki on wiki.gnu.org, and where one 
could get official word from the GNU Project leader (which remains rms) on which 
domains are owned by the GNU Project (certainly one would expect gnu.org to be in 
that set of domains but not necessarily gnu.tools).

These differences suggest to me that one should be wary of what one finds on 
gnu.tools.



[1] https://www.whois.com/whois/gnu.tools which appears as shown in 
https://archive.md/wip/QM6MM as of the time/date on this email.
[2] https://www.whois.com/whois/gnu.org which appears as shown in 
https://archive.md/wip/CVMzp as of the time/date on this email.