The Debian Administrator's Handbook

The development process is constantly debated, but these Foundation Documents are widely and consensually supported, thus rarely change. The Debian constitution also offers other guarantees: a qualified majority of three quarters is required to approve any amendment.

1.2.1. The Commitment towards Users

The project also has a “social contract”. What place does such a text have in a project only intended for the development of an operating system? That is quite simple: Debian works for its users, and thus, by extension, for society. This contract summarizes the commitments that the project undertakes. Let us study them in greater detail:

Debian will remain 100% free.

This is Rule No. 1. Debian is and will remain composed entirely and exclusively of free software. Additionally, all software development within the Debian project, itself, will be free.

PERSPECTIVE Beyond software

The first version of the Debian Social Contract said “Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software”. The disappearance of this word (with the ratification of Version 1.1 of the contract in April of 2004) indicates the will to achieve freedom, not only in software, but also in the documentation and any other element that Debian wishes to provide within its operating system.

This change, which was only intended as editorial, has, in reality, had numerous consequences, especially with the removal of some problematic documentation. Furthermore, the increasing use of firmware in drivers poses problems: frequently non-free, they are, nonetheless, necessary for proper operation of the corresponding hardware.

We will give back to the free software community.

Any improvement contributed by the Debian project to a program integrated in the distribution is sent back to the author of the program (called “upstream”). In general, Debian will cooperate with the community rather than work in isolation.

COMMUNITY Upstream author, or Debian developer?

The term “upstream author” means the author(s)/developer(s) of a program, those who write and develop it. On the other hand, a “Debian developer” works with an existing program to make it into a Debian package (the term “Debian maintainer” is better suited).

Frequently, the line of demarcation is not clear. The Debian maintainer may write a patch, which benefits all users of the software. In general, Debian encourages those in charge of a package in Debian to get involved in “upstream” development as well (they become, then, contributors, without being confined to the simple role of users of a program).

We will not hide problems.

Debian is not perfect, and, we will find new problems to fix every day. We will keep our entire bug report database open for public view at all times. Reports that people file on-line will promptly become visible to others.

Our priorities are our users and free software.

This commitment is more difficult to define. Debian imposes, thus, a bias when a decision must be made, and will discard an easy solution for the developers that will jeopardize the user experience, opting for a more elegant solution, even if it is more difficult to implement. This means to take into account, as a priority, the interests of the users and free software.

Works that do not meet our free software standards.

Debian accepts and understands that users often want to use some non-free programs. The project, thus, has made part of its infrastructure available to them, in order to distribute as Debian packages software that authorizes it.

COMMUNITY For or against the non-free section?

The commitment to maintain a structure to accommodate non-free software (i.e. the “non-free” section, see the sidebar VOCABULARY The main, contrib and non-free archives) is frequently a subject of debate within the Debian community.

Detractors argue that it turns people away from free software equivalents, and contradicts the principle of serving only the free software cause. Supporters flatly state that most of the non-free packages are “nearly free”, and held back by only one or two annoying restrictions (the most common being the prohibition against commercial usage of the software). By distributing these programs in the non-free branch, we indirectly explain to the author that their creation would be better known and more widely used if they could be included in the main section. They are, thus, politely invited to alter their license to serve this purpose.

After a first, unfruitful attempt in 2004, the complete removal of the non-free section should not return to the agenda for several years, especially since it contains many useful documents that were moved simply because they did not meet the new requirements for the main section. This is especially the case for certain software documentation files issued by the GNU project (in particular, Emacs and Make).