> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look > > something like: > [...]
On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB > binaries". You mean people running free software which happens to run on LSB? Or do you mean people running non-free software which happens to run on LSB? Seems to me, both are covered already in some of the social contract drafts -- albeit, without mentioning any standards or versions by name. [Ok, perhaps the idea of leaving our definition of "free software" out of the social contract is an exercise in stupidity -- nonetheless, I can't figure out any third classification which LSB binaries might fall.] -- Raul