On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs > > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We > > | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and > > | will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards. > > = To make our system more attractive to people with mild dependencies > > = on non-free software, we have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas > > = in our internet archive. The software in these directories is not > > = needed by most people, and we do not guarantee all software in the > > = non-free area may be distributed in other ways. Thus, although > > = we're working to reduce people's dependence on non-free software, > > = we support users who are still dependent. Additionally, we will > > | work to provide free alternatives to non-free software so people who > > | use only free software can work with users of non-free software. > > | > > > > I second this proposal. > > > > That said clarification of the last sentence would be nice, but maybe it can > > go in some rationale or something. > > I'm planning on following Andrew M.A. Cater's suggestion, and will be > extracting the content of the lines marked above with = as a part of > the rationale for the proposal. [Those lines won't go into the social > contract except for the last two words of the last "=" line.] > > Are you ok with that? > > Is there any additional clarification you would expect?
Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get rid of mention of our existing support for non-free. I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's proposal, not mine. So I'm going to think about this a bit more. I definitely need to update my proposal (Linux Standard Base is what LSB stands for), but I'm less certain that pulling out the non-free section stuff is the right thing to do. Andrew Cater -- could you explain a bit more about why you thought getting rid of that content was a good idea? I mean, I understand what you're saying in a glib sense, but not when I sit back and think about it. Thanks, -- Raul
