On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to > +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream > +authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the > +development of free alternatives to a point where they can replace the > +non-free software when they are not.
I don't see why this should be necessary. I'd expect every DD who maintains a package in non-free to have done exactly this for years now, why should we put it into the Social Contract again (after saying that our priorities are Free Software [and our users])? Another point to note is that adding five more lines to the fifth clause would make that non-free clause take up around 40% of the Social Contract. After reading it, that non-free bit might have settled in the mind of the casual user as a major point (as he read it at the end). Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
