On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:01:47PM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote: > I support Branden's proposal but I don't support the removal of > non-free.
Branden's proposal has the first clause read:
Debian Will Remain 100% Free
We promise to preserve your right to freely use, modify and
distribute Debian operating system distributions. [...] Every
work contained in our distributions will satisfy those guidelines.
[...]
and removes any counterbalancing mention of distributing non-free software
as well.
How do you square Debian continuing to distribute non-free software with
our promise to remain "100% free", and the promise that "every work in
our distributions will satisfy [the DFSG]"?
If you do not feel that doing so would violate the letter, the intent
or the spirit of the revised social contract, how do you envisage it
having any moral force at all?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
