On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 11:30:36PM +0000, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: > Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > >> This resolution violates the social contract > > And that's simply false. Not that it matters (there is no rule that > > says GRs are required to comply with the social contract). > > To state the obvious: > > "5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards > > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that > don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created > "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software." > > I don't see how removing of a part of the project described in the SC > wouldn't violate it but English is not my native language so I guess > I'm misunderstaning something.
Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are just modified in the presence of clause 5. Note in particular that the proposed resolution does not require the removal of non-free; that's just an obvious conclusion. > Of course, like you said, Social Contract is subject to GR's. As it is > a Foundation Document and as such requires a 3:1 majority to be > superseded, I would like this GR to be called something like "Change > of Social Contract: Removal of non-free" so it would be more obvious > to everybody that this is not a "normal" GR. Procedural; that's Manoj's problem. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
