On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
This is exactly why we have to decide what we want to do, and then modify the social contract accordyingly. Friendly, Sven Luther
