On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the > current discussion about non-free.
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads: > 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 > software which satisfies our Free Redistribution guideline but not > all our other guidelines. The software in these directories is an > optional supplement to the Debian OS which is available from the > "main" are of our FTP archive. Thus, although non-free software > isn't the point of Debian, we support its use, and we provide > infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) > for non-free software packages. > If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need > to be solved, and suggest how to make it better. Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded. The wording still leaves open the question of whether "we have created [sections on our ftp site]" means "we must keep these sections on our ftp site". The wording change also does not seem to address any of the reasons users currently perceive non-free as part of Debian. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
