Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:03:56PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 05:52:17PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 08:38:03AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > It is a largely technical proposal with some alterations to the Social
> > > Contract to clear up some muddy language and terminate a compromise
> > > that was made years ago for pragmatic reasons.
> >
> > what a nice way of saying "break a promise we made years ago".
> >
> > maybe you should look for a career in marketing. you've certainly got
> > a talent for spin-doctoring. a willingness to break promises shows the
> > right ethical standard for the field too.
>
> And were the amendments to the American constitution breaking
> promises? Is every change of British law a broken promise? The
> social contract is a partly idealistic, partly practical document.
> The proposal is to alter some of the practical aspects. a priori,
> that's not wrong. (Certainly, one can disagree with the change. But
> the /idea/ of changing the social contract is not intrinsically wrong)
The amendments to the US Constitution were made with the approval of the
people they governed. To make this analogy shows an ignorance about how the
American political system works.
Besides, we aren't talking about changing the Debian Constitution here.
We're talking about changing the Social Contract, which is IMHO far
different.
--Adam
Reply to: