Re: The "Free" vs. "Non-Free" issue
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 16:52:12 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> said:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 11:42:02AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
>> > > Because you have no problem you're trying to solve, you do not
>> > > [can't] recognize other proposals to solve the same problem.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 04:25:11PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
>> > You haven't made any proposals. You asked for other people to
>> > make some. Nobody did.
>>
>> I have not made any proposals which need to be voted on.
> Exactly what I said. Anything that doesn't need to be voted on is a
> proposal to maintain the status quo, no matter how many words you
> use to say it.
In a certain narrow, limited, sense, you are correct. But far
ranging changes are not easily architected in a simple, initial draft
proposal; so any process that immediately wants to jump to an
actionable solution must needs stick to simplistic solutions to the
problem. I think that the issue is complex enough, and yes, I do
honestly believe that the needs of end users ought to be dealt with
with more care than "of, if this software is really important, then
some infrastructure shall magically spring up, somehow, and anyway,
the users inconveniences are not our problem, despite what we say in
the social contract, since the lusers are using non-dfsg free
software".
Amending the social contract by itself is not, in my opinion,
good enough, since a promise than can be retracted at a whimsy is
worth little.
So yes, I would like to see some discussion of whether we are
going to be leaving our users in a lurch, despite our current
contract with them, because we no longer like the old contract, and
shall modify that forthwith.
manoj
--
Cynic, n.: Experienced.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: