Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> It's a distinction >> >> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me. >> > Mmm. You're very special. >> No, I'm not. > > Mmm. I thought you just said you saw something that other people didn't? > Surely that makes you special?
I said that it don't surprise me when people don't make this distinction not that I'm surprised each time people do. >> It might be a cultural issue but it is, for me, perfectly >> sane to say: >> 1. This is what I believe. > > "That Debian should be 100% free" ? > >> 2. This is how I make them true in the most optimal way. > > "By including non-free stuff in Debian" ? The status of non-free as part of Debian does not change from being not a part of Debian (right now) to being part of Debian by removing it from the Social Contract. That would be an absurd interpratation of the proposal. So this is a bit of a strawman and has nothing to do with the consistency of my opinion. The Social Contract has always had this twist and I don't see any *new* problems in this respect with Brandens proposal. Quite contrary I see the present contract to say: We will remain 100% free [Software, but it doesn't matter here] and we promise to support non-free software. With Brandens proposal we could say: We will remain 100% free and when our goals is served by doing so we will provide infrastructure for integrating non-free with Debian. By taking the non-free part out of the Social Contract is turns from being a promise to the community to being 'something we can do if it in other ways server our goals'. Do you believe that distributing non-free is a goal in itself? Can distribution serve as a goal to make the best free operating system guided by the needs of our users and the free-software community? I believe it can. > No, I'm saying that declaring our support of non-free to be "pragmatic" > and thus somehow inappropriate for the social contract depends on your > prejudices, it's not an absolute truth that can stand on its own. I'm not claiming absolut truth anymore than you do. I'm not not saying that the above has some kind of a priori truth not any more than I would agree that the opposite opinion has some kind of a priori truths. > Mmm. Given that we have all already agreed to it, and that it's the only > precedent for the Debian social contract, people wouldn't be saying that > things already in it just aren't appropriate in that sort of document > though, wouldn't you? I have never agreed to the Social Contract being a perfect document and I have never agreed to the Social Contract being a never changing document. I've even voted for having the constitution clearly define how to change it. I'm fine with having the fifth clause in the contract but I thing it would be better if it weren't there. -- Peter Makholm | According to the hacker ethic, the meaning of life [EMAIL PROTECTED] | is not Friday, but it is not Sunday either http://hacking.dk | -- Peeka Himanen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
