Re: Bug#129604: Interpreting the Social Contract, what is our priority ?
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:26:15 +0100 (CET)
"Adrian Bunk" <bunk@fs.tum.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Glenn McGrath wrote:
>
> That's perhaps in your mind, but the Social Contract makes it clear
that> this is an "and". Section 2 of the Social Contract says
>
> "We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
> Debian..."
>
> and the complete section
>
> 5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
>
> covers our relation to non-free software.
>
>
It also says "1. Debian Will Remain 100% Free Software"
Section 1 could be seen to be conflicting with section 5.
Its against the ideology of free software to support non-freee software.
Merging section and 1 and 5 it says (my interpretation) "We support the
use of non-free software but we will remain entirely free software."
Would it be fair to say the social contract doesnt supports the
__priciniples__ of free software, just the current implementation of
those principles ?
My argument isnt that my interpretation is correct, it is that the
social contract isnt clear, and different people will interpret it
different ways... which may be a source of some of the constant division
between developers.
Glenn
Reply to: