[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: agreeing with the DFSG (was Re: non-free --> non-dfsg)



On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 06:19:46PM -0600, Ossama Othman wrote:
> I get the impression that my objectivity is being misinterpreted again.
> IMHO, the idea that developer's should agree with the DSFG and/or the
> social contract in their entirety is dangerous and will only hinder
> Debian. I don't agree with all of Debian's policies, nor should I have to.

But you should agree with our social contract, right? That is, after all,
what the point of a social contract /is/, isn't it? That we'll all abide
by it?

"Agreeing" with the DFSG in a fairly important part of that -- our major
aim is to produce a free system, and if we can't even agree on what that
means then we're not going to get *anywhere*.

I'm not /entirely/ sure what you're referring to here, though. I haven't
seen anyone telling anyone that they shouldn't be a part of Debian because
they don't think the DFSG is perfect, but I don't read every piece of mail
on every list.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
  for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Attachment: pgp5IhVZ2p68V.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: