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

Re: Clarifications

On 8 Jun 2000, Robert D. Hilliard wrote:

> Stephen Frost <sfrost@ns.snowman.net> 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?


Reply to: