On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > What do you mean, without a mandate? If the GR passes with a > > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate? > Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of: > Further, the acceptance of the GR is not intended as a mandate > to actually remove the non-free or contrib sections of our > FTP archive.
For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:
Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive,
and no longer supported by the Debian project.
or
Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be supported by
the Debian project.
on the other hand would be unobjectionable. If you confuse those two
points, whichever happens (non-free staying or being removed), one or
the other group is going to (justifiably IMO) feel cheated. Put both on
the ballot if you like. But clarity is a good thing.
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
