Counter Proposal (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)

[Craig Sanders <cas@taz.net.au>]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:31:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> A brave assertion.  But then you have to think about this carefully-crafted
> document and wonder why it doesn't read like this:
> 
>   5. We Will Support Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
> 
>   We will maintain "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for
>   this software.  We encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of
>   software packages in these directories and determine if they can
>   distribute that software on their CDs.  We will support the use of
>   non-free software in Debian, and we will provide infrastructure (such as
>   our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software
>   packages.

nice idea. i propose that we modify the Social Contract so that it does
say that.

Anyone willing to second this?


> So?  Why doesn't it read like that?

an oversight.  it seemed self-evident and obvious at the time.

craig

--
craig sanders