On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:04:49PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Magosányi Árpád wrote: > > > A levelez??m azt hiszi, hogy Florian Weimer a következ??eket írta: > > > Let me rephrase my statement. "non-free" does not mean "not > > > conforming to the law". > > > > Non-free does mean "not conforming to the internal law of the > > project". > > The Social Contract mandates that Debian offers non-free software for > download, so you can hardly argue that doing so breaks Debian's own > laws.
Ehhh? "Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages." -- Excerpt from the social-contract This definitely does not _mandate_ that Debian offers non-free software, it says that we currently do so. Something mandatory is something that has to be done. Debian does not _have_ to offer non-free software (at least not to the best of my knowledge. If we do, I might have to go looking for a new project to be a part of...) Note: I'm not arguing against your protest regarding "Debian's own laws", but rather your incorrect use of the word mandate. Regards: David -- /) David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> /) Northern lights wander (\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Full colour fire (/