>>>>> Collins M Ben writes: JC> I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the JC> definition of "truly free" software beyond that which the social JC> contract and DFSG currently provide.
BC> My two little pennies worth. I'm sort of against the "pure" BC> concept, but only because main is _supposed_ to be pure, by it's BC> own definition. I would be happy with either way. Here's my current vote: [1] TOSS THINGS INTO CONTRIB [2] NEW PURE DISTRIBUTION [ ] STATUS QUO BC> My opinion, get back to the roots of our goals and gut main to BC> meet the standards that Debian was built on. I agree completely. I'm proposing `pure' as a rational alternative that forces the issue to get us out of the rut of the status quo. BC> Don't water down the issues or pretty soon we will have "holy, BC> pure, main, dusty, dirty, trash, non-free, pure-evil, and BC> satanic" sections. Hrmm... we wouldn't need `satanic', since it would only contain Beelzebub, which is a single binary. Actually, neither `pure-evil' nor `satanic' wouldn't be necessary, either, since we wouldn't be allowed to distribute them royalty-free. ;) -- Gordon Matzigkeit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/) Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
