Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is no text of the social contract which applies the word Debian > > to non-free under any description at all, but rather, serves to > > mention both only to make as clear as possible that non-free is not > > part of Debian, using those very words. > > I guess that's true if you don't think that we are Debian. > > If we are Debian, then the use of terms such as "we" or "our" used when > describing our relationship to non-free fit that description.
No, look at what "we" do. "We" have created a non-free FTP area. "We" support its use (that is, we make sure Debian works with it) "We" provide infrastructure It does not say that "we provide non-free packages". Rather, we provide an area, so that people can provide non-free packages if they want to, but what they are doing is not Debian. And where it does this, it says "although non-free software isn't a part of Debian". Not just "the Debian system" or "the Debian distribution", but "Debian". We currently have a non-Debian thing living in close relationship with Debian, and many people have become so confused by those close ties that they have decided that the non-Debian thing is really part of Debian after all. As section one says, "we will never make the system depend on an item of non-free software". If a piece of non-free software is really essential, then we have failed in that goal. Thomas
