[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, maybe the people who mislabeled the "everything is software" vote > as an "editorial change" and deceived many other developers should have > tought about this.
This is an old canard. It *was* an editorial change: we'd already worked out that it *made no difference*. "Debian will remain 100% free software". There are only two choices of how to interpret this. Maybe you still haven't figured that out, perhaps because you're not a native English speaker, so I'll reiterate. (Option 1) Every collection of bits is software. This is what the editorial changes went with. (Option 2) Some things (like documentation) aren't software. In that case, since "Debian will remain 100% free software", Debian mustn't contain any documentation at all period. Is that seriously the position you were advocating? No, it wasn't. Nobody was advocating that position. I strongly suggested, at the time, an GR to change the Social Contract to say something like "The computer programs in Debian will remain 100% free software," which is what you apparently *wanted* it to say. None of you people decrying the "editorial changes" had the honesty or integrity to actually propose such a GR. Damn it, get off your butt and DO it. Propose such a GR and you'll get the respect you don't currently deserve. I'd propose it myself if I were a DD, just to get a clear vote on the actual issue on the record. Incidentally, if I ever become a DD, I *will* immediately propose a GR to amend the Social Contract to explicitly allow unmodifiable license texts in Debian, since it technically doesn't, but everyone agrees that it should. I'd welcome someone else beating me to it. -- Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A thousand reasons. http://www.thousandreasons.org/ Lies, theft, war, kidnapping, torture, rape, murder... Get me out of this fascist nightmare! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
