Re: Screw non-free.
Zenaan Harkness wrote:
It was Donnie Barnes. You wrote something to me about Red Hat not having
a social contract. But there was also a conversation I was having at
about the same time with Eric Andersen, regarding what belonged in
Debian and what did not. And to resolve that, I wrote the first draft of
the Debian Social Contract and DFSG.
Bruce, you have layn claim to authorship of the Debian Social Contract
previously, can you please clarify your position wrt ean's comments
On Fri, 2004-03-12 at 12:21, Ean Schuessler wrote:
The Social Contract itself is the result of a charged discussion that _I_ had
at USENIX with Robert Young
Well, also compromise with people who felt that Debian would not be as
useful without it. Remember that there was a lot _less_ Free Software
back then. Times have changed a tremendous lot since then.
Non-free and contrib crept in as a matter of convenience.
There is no question that Debian is huge and mature enough to split into
a Pure Free Software project and a separate project for non-free. And
that's what I think we should do.
At the time the vast
majority of people could not download something as big as Debian so their
importance was discounted. Those times are passing and we need to come to
terms with where we came from so that we can firmly perceive where we are
Uh, why don't we just split the project into a free and non-free part,
and let the two projects make their own policies. We can do this without
getting people all inflamed by making reactionary speeches before it
happens. That's just going to make the transition more difficult. This
is simply a matter of "we've grown up now and this is the right thing to
Debian is Free. Support does not mean distribution. If an organization or an
author is not kind enough to