On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Stephen Frost wrote:
> On 7 Jun 2000, John Goerzen wrote: > > > There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me > > clarify a few points: > > > > 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My > > proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution. > > This bears repeating. This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution. > > I disagree. It will have effect on the CD distribution. It will > have an effect on the http/ftp/rsync distribution. Gah, okay, this is a stupid reply but I felt the mistake warrented it. I intended to say 'It will NOT have effect on the CD distribution.' My apologies. > > 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the > > interests of any other party. I advance it because I believe it is > > the best for Debian. > > A large problem with this proposal is the form and reason for it. > > The reason seems to be completely political. There are no > technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may > not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and > a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt > there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial > to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it. 'packaged the items which clearly were packaged.' may be better phrasing and alliviate some possible confusion. > Concern should be raised as to the reasons for this political > statement. What is the external reason for this change? Have users > been confused as to the meaning of 'non-free'? Or have they been > confused with regard to what Debian is and stands for? Or is it bad > press that Debian is being hypocritical with it's ideals? > > It is unlikely that any of these are the case. If 'bad press' > is indeed the reason then perhaps Debian is not about developers and > users and is instead about politicians and mud slinging. Okay, the 'mud slinging' comment may have been best kept in my head. Please do not let it detract from point I am driving to drive at here. > Developers know what Debian is, and what it stands for. Users > understand Debian's goals and policies. Press in general should be > ignored unless there is some technical merit to it. Let us not cause > greater confusion and work in order to make a statement about what we > are, for we are already known and understood. > > > 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other > > Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software > > -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software. > > This appears against the ideals that are apparently desired and > makes for confusion. Such a split would be worse than a complete break. > My apologies for replying to myself but I felt the obvious mistake at the top needed correcting and decided I might as well fine tune some of the other bits so as to make this not completely a one-liner. Again, my apologies. Stephen