Re: General Resolution: Handling of the non-free section: proposedBallot
Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > > I guess Raul is right, and that the non-free removal GR should indeed
> > > propose a rationale saying exactly why it is a good idea.
> >
> > Hogwash. There is no need for everyone who votes for it to agree on a
> ^^^^^^^
> Please refrain from using uncomprehensible words, which may (perhaps)
> have an offensive meaning (maybe imagined) to non-english speakers.
The word isn't uncomprehensible. This list is carried in English, and
I cannot predict what English phrase will be uncomprehensible to you.
Get a good dictionary. Indeed, the dictionary *in Debian* contains
this word.
> And so you know. I would have some respect for the argumentation of
> Branden, even if i think that you cannot lump all packages in the same
> case, and a per package handling of this would be more appropriate. But
> this new argumentation, of separating non-free from the debian archive,
> even as it is contrary to the social contract i (and you probably)
> signed in for, is pure sophistry, and a total waste of time for
> imaginary gain.
The proposal involves an amendment to the social contract, does it
not? You can't argue against amending the social contract on the
grounds that the current social contract doesn't allow it.
Reply to: