On Wed, 26 May 2004 11:17:22 -0400, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:30:28PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> That would only apply if Andrew's proposal overrided the SC, which
>> AFAICS it doesn't.
> That's an interesting point.
> The Social contract says that we have two priorities: our users and
> free software. Andrew's proposal says that we won't compromise on
> freedom.
> Either
> [a] "freedom" has nothing to do with free software, or
> [b] "freedom" refers to free software and this proposal is intended
> to mean that our users are less of a priority than software freedom,
> or
> [c] "freedom" refers to free software, but the proposal doesn't
> actually mean that anything has changed with respect to that
> priority.
> [d] something else (?)
Umm, how about the SC talks about two things, and we are not
gonna compromise about the first one? Whether or not we compromise
about anything else is beyond the scope of the position statement,
manoj
--
Lack of money is the root of all evil. George Bernard Shaw
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
