Hello, On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 03:13:14PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > And exactly this is what it is all about: find a way to satisfy BOTH > > priorities, not just one. > > No. It is about the definition of "our users". > > If "our users" are dependent on non-free software, then we indirectly > say in our social contract that free and non-free software is of equal > concern to us.
this is what section 5 of the social contract is about. let me cite the relevant part: "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages" > I claim that "our users" does not include users of non-free software. This is a contradiction to the social contract. > I would even say that such users are free-riders of free software, if > their use is dependent on our system which is "100% free software". This is insulting. Best regards Frederik Schueler -- ENOSIG
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
