Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: >> This resolution violates the social contract > And that's simply false. Not that it matters (there is no rule that > says GRs are required to comply with the social contract).
To state the obvious: "5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software." I don't see how removing of a part of the project described in the SC wouldn't violate it but English is not my native language so I guess I'm misunderstaning something. Of course, like you said, Social Contract is subject to GR's. As it is a Foundation Document and as such requires a 3:1 majority to be superseded, I would like this GR to be called something like "Change of Social Contract: Removal of non-free" so it would be more obvious to everybody that this is not a "normal" GR. -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
