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

Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 04:54:41AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> There appears to be a bit of ad hominem attack here.


> Nowhere in the contract does it state, or can it be logically construed,
> that Debian's users are a proper subset of the free software community.
> ...
> The Contract is, as it says, one with the free software community.

Interesting. I had always thought that when the social contract said
``We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free-software
community'' that actually meant something. Clearly, thanks to your word
play, it doesn't.

I'm disappointed.

I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed that the social contract isn't
binding, or that we're not willing to act as if it is anyway.

> Perhaps it would be a worthwhile excercise to select some representatives
> from the free software community, and outside Debian, to represent the
> interests OF the free software community, the party with which Debian has
> entered into its one-sided[1] contract?

In this case, I suspect the interests of the free software community
are fairly straightforward, varying from "who cares, just as long as you
keep main just the same" to "bleh, non-free sucks, don't touch it", which
probably argues for the proposal and certainly doesn't argue against it.

More relevant is our user community's opinion, although apparently we're
not required to care about that.

> How do you propose to select such a group of representatives?  Or do you
> think it is feasible to identify all the members of the free software
> community and poll them on this issue?

I'd still disagree with the proposal, but I wouldn't consider it breaking
a promise or reneging on an agreement after seeing a majority of debian-user
subscribers supporting it.


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

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpor2stQhrPq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: