Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free, Draft 2
Anthony Towns <email@example.com> writes:
> * Changing the social contract without consulting the affected parties
> of the contract (in this case, in particular, Debian's user community)
> is wrong. So as well as doing the GR, the proposers should also attempt
> to poll or gain the consensus of debian-user, or similar.
The social contract is with the Free Software Community. The GNU
Project was always disturbed by the existence of non-free in Debian.
Paragraph Five has the effect of undermining free software. It is
ludicrous to see the current Paragraph Five as a promise to keep
undermining free software forever. The Free Software Community is
that group of people who prefer free software to non-free software,
and work to make the former better and undermine the latter.
> * non-free software remains necessary to many of our users and many of
> our developers, so non-free packages will continue being maintained
> elsewhere without the benefits of the Debian infrastructure, needlessly
> using more of our developers' time and for a worse result. Similarly,
> our users will continue using non-free software, but it will be more
> difficult to find, and get support for.
Not of the non-free maintainers can agree on an archive, set it up,
and run it. I believe that they are competent and talented people who
know how to configure a few FTP servers and set up a BTS, and make it
work with a fairly small amount of effort.