Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 06, 2000 at 10:16:58PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> > 4. This clause was never debated when the Social Contract was created.
>
> this is not true. as i recall it, that clause (and the issues leading
> up to it) was one of the most contentious. at the time, some were in
> favour of being 100% free software, a very few were in favour of making
> no distinction, and the vast majority were in favour of the compromise
> position as summarised in that clause - i.e. that we will support
> non-free software but it will always be secondary in importance (at
> best) to free software.
Can you please point me to a reference for this? Despite my best
efforts, I was unable to turn it up.
> we debated the DFSG for over a month, with every point being discussed
> until we were all nearly sick of it. then we voted on it.
Note that DFSG is not the same as social contract; this proposal does
not effect the DFSG.
> > At least I cannot find evidence of much discussion on it in the
> > sketchy archives of e-mail at that time that exist today.
>
> i have complete archives of debian-private dating back to the first
> message sent on the list. if you want, i can send you a couple of months
> worth around the time we debated it.
I found the -private archives on master for that time, but could not
find the corresponding -devel archives for that time.
-- John
Reply to: