WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed WV> me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original SC. WV> Sue me, English isn't my native language.
I don't see much value in quibbling over the actual words in the original Social Contract. I think the actual meaning we intend for the current SC is far more important. RM> Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation. Historically, Debian has had numerous ideals. Not a single Debian release has demonstrated achievement of all those ideals. Now, you can infer from this that we didn't really have those ideals, and achieved our real ideals, or you can infer that we compromised our ideals out of pragmatism or ignorance. Or you can infer something else entirely. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
