> No, give *us* a break. Debian *IS* about free software, that *is* > it's primary goal, everything else is secondary; by your own admission > you didn't know that when you joined the project, and you don't seem > to understand it now. No, I didn't know that when I joined. Does that matter! What I am trying to get across here is a valid arguement anyways. Sure Debian *IS* about free software and that *is* its primary goal. My arguement to maybe work on our relation to non-free by no means conflicts with the main goal of freeness. > > I think it stems from the fact it is maintained entirely by > > volunteers and is related really closely to what makes Linux so > > cool. > > A number of the Debian volunteers (including some of the most > important ones) work on this project *because* of it's freeness. sure, and alot of them work on it for other reasons. your point would be? > > > ps. Have we started making prospective maintainers look at the > > > DFSG yet? > > > > humm, get them while they're fresh and can't form their own > > opinions. Humm... > > "get them"? How does asking them to read and understand the DFSG > constitute "getting them"? You're doing a huge injustice to new > developers if you're suggesting that they can't form their own opinion > and would be influenced soley by the fact that the new-maintainer > people asked to read and understand Debian's social contract. No way. It is not an injustice -- it is reality. My comment is based on the fact that it is not possible to truely understand the concept of the DFSG and its relation to Debian until you experience being a developer and listening to the mail for awhile. At first when I heard the dissent stuff from Chris and so on, I thought it was crap. And then someone pointed me towards the DFSG and I thought they were a little harsh but understandable. But now, I have simply come to realize that they are entirely taken to be too much of some kind of Bible -- and in their current state, I don't think they are deserving of this. Not that I am trying to say (or ever meant to say) they were all 100% bad! I just was hoping for a little thought of revision. ----- Brought to you by the letters E and K and the number 9. Paul J. Thompson <thomppj@thomppj.student.okstate.edu> <http://thomppj.student.okstate.edu/~thomppj/>
Attachment:
pgpZSrO4gDwtV.pgp
Description: PGP signature