Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Mon, 26 Apr 2004, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Since the old social contract was meant to be applied to
> everything on the Debian CD, there is no difference between the old
> SC and the new SC. The new one just is clearer. Hence, editorial
> change.
Quoting Colin Watson :
"Before this GR, the social contract didn't explicitly forbid its
distribution as part of Debian: some people interpreted it to do so,
while others did not. Accordingly, it was possible to consider such
material non-critical."
I consider including binary firmwares NOT critical. For example, I have
aWi-Fi PCMCIA card, with a firmware. The firmware is injected at runtime
instead of being in ROM.
This kind of hardware is now banned from Debian.
I could have used the same card but with ROM firmware, and it would have
been okay. Same driver, but 1. with loadable binary, and 2. with
already-loaded-binary. What's the point making a difference between these
two cases ?
> More than 50%
> > voting participation with "Status of the non-free section", and only
> > 20% with this one, which also has great consequences ?
> > Weird, isn't it ?
> I can't help apathy.
This is NOT apathy. More than 50% of DD votes in the last pool, and only
20% in this one. This is not apathy, but a problem with the GR redaction.
But that's not a problem. Users (and beginners) will have much more
troubles making their machine work, but who cares ? Oh, the social
contract ?
In other news,
"Social Contract Amendment May Bump Sarge To 2005"
http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/04/26/229237.shtml?tid=106&tid=117&tid=185&tid=90&tid=99
Reply to: