On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 04:55:32PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > (a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here -- > we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using > non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll > allow our infrastructure (archive, bts, mailing lists, etc) to be used for > non-free software.
Conflating the archive together with the BTS and mailing lists makes things quite a bit more black-and-white, and unreasonable, than they need to be. Any proposal to forbid discussion of non-free software on the mailing lists would be impractical to implement, and would tend to frustrate our goal of supporting "our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software." You'll note I did not propose to strike that language from clause 1 of our Social Contract. What exactly *does* "we will support our users who develop and run non-free software on Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software" mean to you? Does it mean we *have* to provide package repositories for non-free software? Does it mean we *have* to handle bugs filed in the BTS against DFSG-free packages that interact poorly with non-DFSG-free works? Does it mean we *have* to answer questions about non-free software on Debian lists? If the answers to these are different, why are they different, and why does a mandtaory ban on distributing non-free software follow from the language of any Social Contract which contains the above pledge? -- G. Branden Robinson | I just wanted to see what it looked Debian GNU/Linux | like in a spotlight. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Jim Morrison http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
