On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 12:38:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > At the moment the substantive options that have been discussed are: > > [ ] Drop non-free > [ ] Limit non-free to partially-DFSG-free software > < > Keep non-free as is (unproposed)
Before anybody gets a bright idea, that last one doesn't need proposing, as it is the default option on the ballot; "Further discussion" is precisely this scenario. > > The social contract's ambiguity about handling of non-free software is > > what led to Andrew's "drop non-free" proposal. > > Eh, I think it's safe to say that Andrew's opinion on what's best for > Debian and our users is what led to the "drop non-free" proposal. It would be more accurate to say that my observation of the opinions of a group of people is what led to that proposal. If it were just me, it wouldn't have looked the same, and I probably wouldn't have bothered at all (I just don't care that much; I won't be greatly concerned if majority desire for the presence of non-free causes the default option to win). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
