On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to > > that which AJ suggested. > If it were accompanied by an official definition of "The Debian > Distribution", I'd be happy with AJ's proposal. Without that definition > I don't think it's adequate.
Well, I was going for minimal changes (well, and some trivial updates like dropping "FTP" and "GNU/Linux"), and atm the social contract doesn't define "Debian" (as distinct from "the Debian Project"), "the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution" or "the system". > Also, personally, I think "Debian System" or "Debian Systems" would be a > better term to define I thought about that, but outside of discussions of the social contract (which says "make the /system/ depend"), I've only ever heard people talk about "Debian" or "the Debian distribution", so the latter seemed like the one that'd be most obvious to most people. > (alluding to operating systems -- and emphasizing > that the software is something that is supposed to work together, not > just something we distribute) Yeah, I don't think that's something we should be worrying about as far as keeping or removing non-free is concerned though. For comparison, from the social contract rewrite I mentioned a while ago, ] We will build a free operating system ] ] We will create and provide an integrated system of free software that ] anyone can use. We will make all our work publically available as free ] software. We will accept and support the use of the Debian ] distribution by all users for all purposes, without discrimination. -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/social_contract.html Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature