> >>> On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped -- > >>> that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about > >>> our existing practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > >> Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a > >> choice? > On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 +0000 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure -- this is an old memory. On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:27PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect > one. Exactly. > (Please switch off your attribution mangler.) I'm not sure what you mean. > > Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft > > of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase. > > Thank you! Why? Because Anthony Towns showed me some examples where it wouldn't make sense. > Please will you reintroduce the phrase "The software in these > directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system"? I'm considering that. However, I feel that if I do so I should also include a definition of what "the Debian system" means. > Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at > least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove > non-free GR? I'm dropping changes to sections 2-4. However, section 1 explicitly mentions non-free, and some of the ambiguity in the social contract about non-free is present there. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
