On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 11:22:42AM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote:
>
> > What you seem to be implying is that there is something wrong with the
> > desire to preserve the way things are now (regardless of the
> > motivation). Is this your position?
>
> There is not necessarily anything wrong with it. However, I cannot find
> "Preserve the Way Things Are Now" in Debian's list of committments in
> its Social Contract with the Free Software Community.
No, but the subject of debate is clearly called out in that document.
At this point in time I don't see any gain to keeping, or removing
non-free. In the past I saw this as an example of what we considered
"non-free" (I mean, get a grip. Whatever is there is "freely" available in
lots of other places on the net. It is the DFSG alone that declares such
software anathema. {and then takes it all back in the non-free clause...})
Of all the things that confuse me, this was not one of them, although I
understand some folks "confusion". We have a definition of Software
Freedom in the DFSG, and example code for what constitutes "non-free" in
the designated section called out in that very same document. Makes sense
to me, but offends the sensabilities of others.
So someone feels unfulfilled no matter which way the decission turns.
Maybe we should all give up and go back to working on software ;-)
Waiting is,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "Dwarf's Guide to Debian GNU/Linux" _-_-_-_-_-_-
_- _-
_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 _-
_- Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road _-
_- e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL 32308 _-
_- _-
_-_-_-_-_- Released under the GNU Free Documentation License _-_-_-_-
available at: http://www.polaris.net/~dwarf/
