On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:
> Stephen Frost <email@example.com> writes:
> > The reason seems to be completely political. There are no
> > technical merits to it. Letting outselves be driven by politics may
> > not be beneficial. As a change there needs to be some justification and
> > a solid reason to make such a change. The creators apparently felt
> > there was reason for non-free to exist. Non-free is clearly beneficial
> > to debian developers and users, else no one would have packaged it.
> As I have said before, I have not yet decided what my position
> will be on this GR when it comes to a vote. I do object to
> misstatements on either side of the issue.
> The creators apparently did _not_ feel there was reason for
> non-free to exist. In the Debian Manifesto Ian Murdock said that
> Debian would be distributed by The Free Software Foundation. This
> would effectively prevent a non-free section.
Erm, uhm, so where did it come from? :) What about section 5 of
the social contract?