On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they > weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not > be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead > anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely > controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care.
What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract, if we're not going to remove non-free entirely? Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social contract, but not from the archive? > I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move ahead > with something so clearly controversial, public, and central in > Debian's history without a mandate. I think it's very far-fetched to claim that a GR to remove non-free from the social contract isn't a mandate to remove non-free from the archive. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
