On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 10:34:23PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Again, stuff in the social contract is more important than stuff not > in it.
Elsewhere[1] you said:
> At the moment, we basically just let the maintainers of non-free
> packages do all the work -- make sure the license is okay, get it
> built everywhere, worry about security updates, whatever.
It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
as less important than the main distribution. Moreover, we have been
doing so for quite some time.
In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the Social Contract would
simply seem to be an acknowledgement of the status quo, similar to my
proposed amendment to clause 3. You'll note that my proposed amendment
includes the language:
We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of
non-free software.
It is thus not true that, if my proposed amendment passes, that we're
encouraged to tell users of non-free software on Debian systems to go
take a flying leap. We will continue to do what we can for them.
(Again, I remind the reader that the intent of my proposed GR is *not*
to force the immediate removal of the contrib and/or non-free sections
from ftp-master.debian.org or the mirror network.)
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2003/debian-vote-200311/msg00179.html
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
