Propose new functionalities for Decidim software
#DecidimRoadmap Designing Decidim together
I recently received a comment in my Decidim installation guide asking if the adoption of the Social Contract was mandatory to install Decidim.
Please see all the discussion here to understand the context (I encourage everybody to read the thread):
https://github.com/Platoniq/decidim-install/issues/30
As a summary:
I said that the only legal constraint is the AGPL license and the Social Contract is about being part of the Decidim community.
However, it seems that the social contract itself does not clarify this aspect and he proposes to change that.
QUOTING:
I suggest replacing this sentence from the Social Contract
"The use and development of the Decidim platform by an institution or social group of any kind involves the full and integral acceptance of, and commitment to, this social-contract."
by this one:
The Decidim software is covered by the AGPL license. [You can use it, modify it and redistribute derived versions of it you respect the AGPL license.] Contributions to the Decidim software are moderated by the Decidim association. You are welcome to take part of our association if you accept our Social Contract. Similarily, using the decidim.org platform requires you to respect our Social Contract.
END OF QUOTE
I am not sure if this should be exactly the change needed but I agree with the spirit. I would be nice to hear everybody's opinion on this matter.
The development of this proposal has finished
This debate has reached a consensual conclusion (see thread of comments). Changes applied in: https://decidim.org/faqs/
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
20 comments
He is also commenting that there is an article saying that the social contract is mandatory to install Decidim (in French):
https://scinfolex.com/2019/05/09/le-contrat-social-de-decidim-vers-des-logiciels-libres-a-mission/
Hi @microstudi thanks for opening the debate on this issue, as it is important to differentiate which aspects are mandatory and which are not and, having read the thread, it indeed seems that now are confusing.
For me, the only legal obligation to use and develop Decidim, as you said, is to comply with the AGPL license.
Fulfilling the Social Contract, on the other hand, is a requirement to be part of the Decidim community (now legally constituted as an association), as a technopolitical community that develops a platform of participation under certain democratic principles.
In short, I think we all agree on this. Perhaps the article mentioned is misleading, but clearly we should modify the current text in the social contract to clear up the doubts. So +1 to the proposed amendment.
Conversation with Oliver Valls
Beware @microstudi what you propose is contradictory with the GPL 3 license that Decidim has.
I mean, you can not use the AFERO license and then say that for using Decidim you have also to be compliant with the social-contract that is more restrictive than the license itself.
I have another open source project with GPL license but I wanted to add the constraint to not allow the use of the software for military purposes, but I can't because the GPL license says that anyone can use the software as long as he keeps the GPL license.
That's precisely what I meant. Maybe It wasn't properly explained.
The situation now is that the Social Contract text now says that for USING Decidim you need to comply with the Social Contract. But legally, you only need to comply with the AGPL.
Another think is that if we, as a Decidim association or community, stick to the social contract in order to accept changes to the Decidim software. Of course forks with changes not complying with the Social Contract can do wherever they want as long as comply with the AGPL, it's just that we may decide not to accept their changes. I think this is a discussion we should have as association and reach and agreement on that. I think that this is how Debian works for example, and IMO we should too.
I have the feeling that we all agree that this is how this works, but it is not clear for a newcomer. If you read the french article and its comments it's clear that people got the wrong impression.
I totally agree with you @microstudi, a clear public process on how changes should be accepted/refused will be great for everyone
The social contract has no legal validity. However, as @carol said, its fulfillment is a requirement to be recognized and listed as an instance in decidim.org and, in the near future, to be an instance aligned with the democratic principles that the Decidim Association advocates for.
Conversation with Andrés
I agree with everyone also, +1 to clarify this on the Social Contract.
Decidim is FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software). If we demand extra things we shouldn't use the GPL Affero 3 but other ad-hoc license and it isn't going to be Free Software (or at least RMS vision of "the four freedoms").
Social Contract should only be mandatory for Metadecidim or making PRs.
"Social Contract should only be mandatory for Metadecidim or making PRs."
Totally agree
Entiendo que el contrato social es un compromiso de la comunidad metadecidim con las usuarias del software, al modo del contrato social de Debian, y que aunque no tenga un valor estrictamente legal ni por tanto pueda "obligar" a nadie, sí es exigible a la comunidad metadecidim.
Por otro lado, hay al menos dos cuestiones que creo se deben tener en cuenta:
1. Para modificar el texto del contrato social será necesario articular el proceso correspondiente, incluyendo el acuerdo de la comunidad sobre esa modificación.
y 2, deberíamos incluir en los estatutos de la asociación Metadecidim como causa de expulsión el incumplimiento del contrato social. No se si esto está previsto.
English translation with DeepL:
I understand that the social contract is a commitment of the metadecidim community with the users of the software, in the way of the Debian social contract, and that although it does not have a strictly legal value nor therefore can "force" anyone, it is exigible to the metadecidim community.
On the other hand, there are at least two issues that I think should be taken into account:
To modify the text of the social contract it will be necessary to articulate the corresponding process, including the agreement of the community on that modification.
In order to modify the text of the social contract, it will be necessary to articulate the corresponding process, including the agreement of the community on this modification. and 2, we should include in the statutes of the association Metadecidim as a cause of expulsion the breach of the social contract. I don't know if this is foreseen.
For now, I would go for that option: 1-Affero/GPL if you just want to use Decidim, 2-social contract if you want to be part of the association (with benefits such as potentially intervening on decision making on the code, getting certifications, etc.). If that is the final choice, I would also go for a revision of the requirements for and the benefits from signing the social contract. Being one of our community, as opposed to using our software, should require to comply with much higher democratic standards. To an extent, this strict division license / contract allows us to rise them.
In the mid-long term I would remain open to potential amendments that make the social contract mandatory in the license itself, even if this implies to break with Affero/GPL. I believe problems and value conflicts on this regard will be recurrent. Let concrete practice and strong principles be our guide.
Hi @microstudi
You are right in the ambiguity. It is probably my fault (I wrote that sentence) and we all agree on the fact that: only AGPL, and CC-by-sa (don't forget this for design etc.) can be enforced by mere use of the software and additional materials.
The sentence that you take from the document should actually say:
"The use and development of the Decidim platform by any institution or social group of any kind SIGNING THIS CONTRACT involves the full and integral acceptance of, and commitment to, this social-contract." Note that this is part of the preamble of the social contract.
I suggest we change the original document in this sense (maybe with a different phrasing), but not as suggested by @microstudi , BTW: thanks for rising the questions. It is very important to clarify this.
Another point to keep in mind is to check the Faqs that refer to the social contract. There are two Faqs that refer to the social contract:
* What does it mean that Decidim is for free, free and open source?
* What is the social contract?
Maybe improving the text of these two Faqs could solve the problem without the need to carry out the whole process that would imply changing the social contract ... it would be a faster way.
Conversation with Carol Romero
Hi, in order to close this debate and move forward, do we all agree to make these changes?
In the FAQs:
* What does it mean that Decidim is for free, free and open source?
Decidim is a platform for citizen participation made by people and for people. Its source code is open and can be inspected, modified, and enhanced by anyone. The Decidim software is covered by the AGPL license. That means that you can use it, modify it and redistribute derived versions of it as long as you respect the AGPL license.
* What is the Social Contract?
That's how we call our Code of Democratic Guarantees and Democratic Collaboration. Although Decidim is free software and you can use it any way you want, contributions to the code are moderated by the Decidim association. You can be part of our association if you accept our Social Contract. In the same way, to be part of the platform decidim.org requires you to respect our Social Contract.
(1/2)
And rephrasing the preamble of Social Contract as follows:
"By signing this Social Contract, any individual, institution or social group of any kind, commits to fulfill the principles established here when using, developing and participating in the community of Decidim".
(2/2)
Hi @carol, thanks for summarizing.
I agree with what you comment. Just one note.
I think that the statutes are reflected as you say, but only at the level of legal persons (I understand that we are now talking about organizations) but not at the level of people (article 36). I believe that if we modify this phrase, it should be consistent with the statutes (perhaps a (c) should be added, making the signing of the social contract a requirement. For example: by means of a declaration). At the same time, I understand that it will be the Democratic Guarantees Committee who establishes whether or not to comply with the social contract. On the other hand, we have the verification committee. Should it be removed?
I agree with the changes. It clarifies the difference between the software and the social contract which is the controversial issue here.
@paarals I think this two concepts are independents of the association. As association we will embrace the social contract as a guide but we will have our own rules and articles.
Hi @paarals and @microstudi, thanks for the feedback.
I was just about to suggest, in the same line that Iván comments, that as now it's mainly a question of clarifying in decidim.org the difference between the AGPL license and the social contract, we could simply leave the wording like this:
* What is the Social Contract?
That's how we call our Code of Democratic Guarantees and Democratic Collaboration. All members of the community must endorse the Social Contract.
And remove any reference to the Association to avoid further confusion for now.
When we have more clarity on who can be part of the Association and how, we will incorporate it into the web, but for now is a priority to clarify the confusion with the licenses.
Nice! Thanks @carol and @microstudi
👍 let's do it!
Add your comment
Sign in with your account or sign up to add your comment.
Loading comments ...