On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 10:30:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:42:56 +0300, Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 12:39:05AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> Non-free material is being included in main for the benefit of > >> *precisely zero* users. There's no two ways about this: this is a > >> Social Contract violation. > > > Kernel has 736[1] open bugs, including ones that corrupt data and make > > other packages fail to build. All but one affect actual users. > > > Does the Social Contract really mandate that we should fix bugs > > affecting 0 users before dealing with bugs that actually degrade the > > user experience? > > I think you are framing the question in a biased manner. The > inclusion of non-free software often does not directly impair > operations or degrade utility for most users -- they often are not > concerned about exercising the freedoms that are being curtailed. But > we have common cause in promoting free software, we acknowledge that > non-free software is harmful, and we relegate it to a a repository that > is not part of Debian, but it exists for users who want the > functionality and do not care about the freedom aspect. > > So, in my opinion, getting rid of the non-fee material, and > actually conforming to our social contract is indeed worth more than > fixing these other bugs -- how many of those are release critical, as > this bob-free material issue is? > > There is also the factor of the social contract being our given > word, and people trusting us -- if we can not be expected to even try > to keep our word on the social contract, what _can_ we be trusted with?
IF you really think so, then why did you sabotage my efforts to reach a GR which could be used as a basis to address this issue with the hardware manufacturers last year ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
