In my opinion, Andrew's making a mistake. Simply stating that I should
do what he's doing doesn't help my understand what basis you have for
your statement.
I think it is probable that more people will support editorial changes than policy changes. Therefore, it seems deceitful to try to make policy changes but present them as editorial changes, as in the rationale for your most recent amendment. To remind you:
The rationale for this proposal is: clean up the social contract, make
it less ambiguous, and bring its words in line with the way we have
been interpreting it. This includes continuing our existing support
for non-free software.
Back to this thread:
You have not justified that. I think that all started with me asking you a question, which you did not answer.A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > do.Your currently proposed amendment to clause five changes: 1. requirement for non-free to meet some DFSG;You didn't make any testable claim -- you made a statement which is not testable.
I responded with an easily testable claim. If you can't prove my claim
false, it's because you have no evidence for your belief.
Your claim seems to be that everything allowable in non-free (and not just current contents) must meet some DFSG. To disprove that claim, it seems that I must find or introduce something that does not meet any DFSG. As I am sure you know, I have little to do with non-free works, so I am unlikely to do that.
It is very hard to prove something does not happen, as you ask me to. For example, I could challenge you to prove that you have never been the author of race-hate material and you would find that difficult to do. Surely, if it is required that things meet some DFSG to get into non-free, that must be documented somewhere. Nearly everything else in debian is documented, even if only in mailing list messages. I can't find it, but you must know where it is, if your claim is justifiable. Do you?
And what is this "substantial change"?I disagree. You are trying to make a substantial change and introducing more tension within the social contract.2. exclusion of non-free from the debian operating system;A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > do.
Make non-free into part of the debian distribution.
That's a part of the reason I'm making this proposal.I am not sure that we currently do this as a matter of policy.5. transition plan for non-free packages.A change in how we describe what we do, but not a change in what we > do.
This policy change should have been mentioned in the rationale.
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
