On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote: > Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the > status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's > interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least. > > Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it > would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given > that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler. > > So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue > clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components) > doesn't violate the DFSG.
Where "clarification" reads as "redefinition". You can't do that without a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made. (Personally, I think that was a very unwise precedent to set.. Who has the authority to change it? Does Manoj, as the current secretary?) -- Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You're entitled to my opinion <rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of microsoft's backorifice <rcw> that's the backoffice logo
pgpolb8NRMfaQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature