Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:51, Raul Miller wrote:
> > > [B] Debian only distributes free software and will continue distributing
> > > only free software.
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 04:43:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > You are missing my interpretation:
> >
> > [C] Debian is constituted by 100% Free Software. Software that is 100%
> > Free Software, and distributed by Debian, constitutes that which is
> > Debian.
>
> In my opinion, this is a variation on [B], though actually it's a
> bit worse.
>
> It's worse, because it would mean that the people and resources of Debian
> aren't what constitutes Debian -- that Debian is just software.
>
> > So non-free is actually not part of Debian, but we distribute it
> > nonetheless, as a service to our users. We may cease to provide such a
> > service. (Ignoring as you say, the rest of the Social Contract.)
>
> Yes, that's the other problem with this interpretation -- in addition
> to ignoring most of what we are and have been doing, it ignores the rest
> of the social contract.
As I quoted in my first reply:
On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 16:28, Raul Miller wrote:
...
> If we ignore the rest of the social contract, there's two distinct
> interpretations of this phrase.
I am pointing out there is another interpretation - a third. You chose
two interpretations, neither of which (necessarily) are "best". I'm not
saying mine is either, only pointing out a third interpretation.
And choosing your interpretations/ assumptions will (naturally) have
consequences with regard to the ensuing fla^Wdiscussion.
cheers
zen
Reply to: