On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 04:06:27PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > > Also, for this context, section 1 basically says that we won't make > > anything in our distribution depend on stuff in non-free. [Which means > > that stuff in contrib, which depends on stuff in non-free, should never > > be a part of our official distribution -- it shouldn't be on our official > > cdroms.]
On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 06:08:37PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote: > What it says is "We promise to keep the Debian GNU/Linux Distribution > entirely free software". My contention is that the mirror network > constitutes a distribution system and therefore the materials it moves > constitute the "Debian GNU/Linux Distribution". What? Including the mail archives, the bug tracking system, the partners page, etc.? The system that's used to distribute something is not always equivalent to that thing which is being distributed. Otherwise when you go to the store and buy food you'd be buying the store. > The first article seems to represent an axiomatic statement of our > core mission and the fifth mainly a statement of "support" to the > commercial community. You're confusing the fourth statement and the fifth statement. The fifth statement is for our users, and [as I said before] isn't focused on commercial software. Also, non-free could be entirely populated with non-commercial software without conflicting with the social contract. Perhaps you should read the social contract before your next post? I'm getting tired of repeating the same corrections. > In truth, the specifics that the fifth article go into regarding > directories and methods of access really don't make sense in a "Social > Contract". You don't like examples? > The rest of the statements logically belong in such a statement of > purpose, the fifth should be boiled down to a philosophical direction. Basically, it's just not abstract enough? I'd be more impressed by these declarations of how things should be if I were more confident that you'd read the thing recently. > > Finally, if FTP really becomes obsolete, that doesn't contradict > > section 5. However, FTP is no more obsolete than SMTP. [It doesn't > > represent the majority of traffic on the internet, but people still use > > it for quite a lot.] > > I was not saying that FTP would become obsolete, I was saying that CDs > will become obsolete. Sure, all digital media has a tendency to become obsolete rather quickly. Is this something you want to vote on? You want to make the social contract to mention distribution mechanisms with abstract qualities, rather than specific mechanisms? That would be reasonable, but it doesn't jive with your opening statements. -- Raul
