** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled: > On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways. > > Perhaps.. > > > > It weakens the social contract > > ============================== > > > > The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users > > base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now, > > Debian users could rely on having both a fully functional and free > > distribution available to them and a number of non-free components that > > they may require. While we will, with the proposed changes, continue to > > acknowledge our users' needs for non-free software, we will no longer > > make any attempt to satisfy them. > > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say > Debian is 100% free software and yet it isn't really. Debian has been > providing non-free software and people expect this of us now. When we > start tossing around the idea of changing that, it becomes obvious that > many of us don't really mean for Debian to be 100% free software. I would suspect that you should already know what many said before on that topic. Non-free is supposedly NOT a part of the Debian DISTRIBUTION, so Debian IS 100% free software, isn't it?? What most people opposed to the GR are afraid of is that the non-free would be taken away from the Debian *infrastrucure* which is NOT identical to the *Debian distribution*. If the facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's the whole point - the GR is a purely political move (and not a very clean, moral and right one...)
regards, marek
pgp8OG0GECRDr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
