Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote: > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may > choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any > others that are proposed and seconded), and a s

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to prop

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Le Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait: > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. Great. I completely share your opinion. That's my second mail in this tread. I wish everybody could do like me ... the thread can't be followed unless you

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Now follows a dissertation on the voting system: [...] Thanks for the primer; this was quite possibly the most useful message in this entire thread. -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are venerable Debi

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:00:43PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you > > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement. > > Translation: it is easier to defeat John's propos

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > What do we need this in a GR for? To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpaU08Yd99PG.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

I second this. Hamish On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as f

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 10, John Goerzen wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > This is not really an amendment. I believe an "amendment" under the Debian constitution is an alternative that will be voted upon at the same time as the origi

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:45:32PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote: > > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to > > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may > > choose between John's original resolution, or t

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > > non-free software for it users. > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is > ut

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote: > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement. Translation: it is easier to defeat John's proposal if a clearly defined alternative is proposed to be voted upon at the sa

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 11, Anthony Towns wrote: > As I understand it, at this point two votes need to take place: one to > determine what form the resolution should take so that developers may > choose between John's original resolution, or the one I posted (or any > others that are proposed and seconded), and a

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > The text of

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:44:24PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to pro

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Le Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait: > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. Great. I completely share your opinion. That's my second mail in this tread. I wish everybody could do like me ... the thread can't be followed unless yo

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

I also second this amendment, as it is now clear that it is indeed an amendment.. This message is gpg signed.. Zephaniah E. Hull.. On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:05:15AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote: > Anthony Towns writes: > > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as foll

Second for Amendment (Re: An ammendment)

On Jun 10, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. I second the amendment proposed by Anthony Tow

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 09:53:40PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Now follows a dissertation on the voting system: [...] Thanks for the primer; this was quite possibly the most useful message in this entire thread. -- G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are venerable Deb

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 10:00:43PM -0500, Chris Lawrence wrote: > On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote: > > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you > > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement. > > Translation: it is easier to defeat John's propo

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:30:04PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > What do we need this in a GR for? To reaffirm the principles you are working to erode. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP signature

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

I second this. Hamish On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 10, Branden Robinson wrote: > It's easier to bog down John's proposal in parliamentary bureaucracy if you > couch your diametrically opposed proposal as an amendement. Translation: it is easier to defeat John's proposal if a clearly defined alternative is proposed to be voted upon at the s

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Jun 10, John Goerzen wrote: > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > This is not really an amendment. I believe an "amendment" under the Debian constitution is an alternative that will be voted upon at the sa

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > The text o

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Seconded. > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > ---

Seconded, sponsored (was General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the message identified as Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made a General Resolution whose subject line reads Subject: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2. I second this proposal, and permit my

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns writes: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > -

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

I also second this amendment, as it is now clear that it is indeed an amendment.. This message is gpg signed.. Zephaniah E. Hull.. On Sun, Jun 11, 2000 at 02:05:15AM +0200, Carsten Leonhardt wrote: > Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the propose

Second for Amendment (Re: An ammendment)

On Jun 10, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. I second the amendment proposed by Anthony To

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Does Debian include non-free software?" > "Any of the Debian packages itself doesn't include non-free, No." > "Then users can't use the packages for non-free softwares ?" > "Some un-official packages in contrib can install non-free softwares > ve

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > > > non-free software for it users. > > > > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is > > utility in us actually providing it? > > What ma

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

> They neglect to mention that Debian is already highly successful at > encouraging non-free software authors to relicense, that distributing > software as non-free rather than part of the distribution itself is > already a successful disincentive, that often it is the maintainer of the > non-free

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Anthony Towns wrote: > >--ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: >> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION >> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Seconded. > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > --

Seconded, sponsored (was General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2.)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In the message identified as Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made a General Resolution whose subject line reads Subject: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2. I second this proposal, and permit my

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. > > The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the > developers to resolve that: > > -

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > > non-free software for it users. > > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is > utility in us actually providing it? What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitud

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

Taketoshi Sano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Does Debian include non-free software?" > "Any of the Debian packages itself doesn't include non-free, No." > "Then users can't use the packages for non-free softwares ?" > "Some un-official packages in contrib can install non-free softwares > v

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Dirk Eddelbuettel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > > > non-free software for it users. > > > > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is > > utility in us actually providing it? > > What m

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

> They neglect to mention that Debian is already highly successful at > encouraging non-free software authors to relicense, that distributing > software as non-free rather than part of the distribution itself is > already a successful disincentive, that often it is the maintainer of the > non-free

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Anthony Towns wrote: > >--ZRyEpB+iJ+qUx0kp >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: >> DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION >> Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Anthony Towns writes: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. This is not really an amendment. > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > non-free software for it users. What do we need a GR for this? What makes you thin

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

[Let's retry this with the promised PGP sig...] On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Your amendment looks like a co

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Your amendment looks like a completely different proposal to me. > The text o

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

> > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > > non-free software for it users. > > What do we need a GR for this? What makes you think that there is > utility in us actually providing it? What makes *you* think there isn't? Nice "holier than you" attitu

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. This is not really an amendment. > 1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing > non-free software for it users. What do we need a GR for this?

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

[Let's retry this with the promised PGP sig...] On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Your amendment looks like a c

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. Your amendment looks like a completely different proposal to me. > The text

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 09:00:56PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > "Does Debian include non-free software?" > "Well that depends ... Debian doesn't officially provide non-free, no." > "Unofficially?" > "It's all there, waiting for you." > "Cool." > > So much for "The truly free distribution". It i

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

Hi. (I don't read "Do not cc me" phrase this time, but I remove knghtbrd from Cc: field, assuming he will read this anyway.) (I add "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", becuase I think this thread should go there, instead of using debian-devel and debian-vote. I left these two (-devel & -vote)

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:47:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > This is a valid point and regardless of the outcome of this resolution I > am almost insistant that we should also resolve to make the Social > Contract and DFSG require a 3:1 vote to alter, just like the constitution > on the grounds

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > [please CC: any replies to me] Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at you, Joy.) > directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition > tools verbosely advise the user about the n

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 09:00:56PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > "Does Debian include non-free software?" > "Well that depends ... Debian doesn't officially provide non-free, no." > "Unofficially?" > "It's all there, waiting for you." > "Cool." > > So much for "The truly free distribution". It

Re: Removing non-free - reality check.

Hi. (I don't read "Do not cc me" phrase this time, but I remove knghtbrd from Cc: field, assuming he will read this anyway.) (I add "Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]", becuase I think this thread should go there, instead of using debian-devel and debian-vote. I left these two (-devel & -vote

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. > > Perhaps.. > > > > It weakens the social contract > > == > > > > The social contra

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 03:47:12AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > This is a valid point and regardless of the outcome of this resolution I > am almost insistant that we should also resolve to make the Social > Contract and DFSG require a 3:1 vote to alter, just like the constitution > on the ground

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 02:06:31PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > [please CC: any replies to me] Notice this? People should need to ask to get CCs. (Not directed at you, Joy.) > directory hierarchy? new server/CNAME?), and making the package acquisition > tools verbosely advise the user about the

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. > > Perhaps.. > > > > It weakens the social contract > > == > > > > The social contr

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

[please CC: any replies to me] > Perhaps the GR proposed is not the most adiquate solution to do this, but > I think if there were a second alternative on the table which did not > alter the social contract and was less technically damaging to the project > that it actually would have a fair chanc

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. Perhaps.. > It weakens the social contract > == > > The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users > base t

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I read and approved the following proposed resolution. I'm willing to second it, so that its CFV may be issued. - -- Ciao, Davide G. M. Salvetti * JG => John Goerzen JG> Debian General Resolution JG> Resolved: J

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

[please CC: any replies to me] > Perhaps the GR proposed is not the most adiquate solution to do this, but > I think if there were a second alternative on the table which did not > alter the social contract and was less technically damaging to the project > that it actually would have a fair chan

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. Perhaps.. > It weakens the social contract > == > > The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users > base

Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I read and approved the following proposed resolution. I'm willing to second it, so that its CFV may be issued. - -- Ciao, Davide G. M. Salvetti * JG => John Goerzen JG> Debian General Resolution JG> Resolved:

An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the developers to resolve

A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. It weakens the social contract == The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now, Debian users could rel

An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > DEBIAN GENERAL RESOLUTION > Proposed by: John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows. The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the developers to resolve

A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. It weakens the social contract == The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now, Debian users could re