Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)
On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 10:43:33PM -0500, Adam Rogoyski wrote:
> > Please read section 5 of the social contract. Debian is a platform for
> > non-free software. If it were not, parts of Debian would be violation of
> > points 5 and 6 of the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Debian would
> > not be able to be released as free software. It is supported in the
> > social contract and DFSG.
> > I feel that having the man power, the capacity, and the will to support
> > the current non-free and contrib sections, and then refusing work to
> > continue to support these sections is not only contrary to the Social
> > Contract, but contrary to the DFSG. Even though the DFSG is a work
> > refering to a software's license, I feel the implications of this proposal
> > violate those guidelines in the spirit of Debian as a whole.
> So let me get this straight:
> The Debian project is now *required* by the DFSG to *package* and
> *distribute* non-free software? (As opposed to, say, allowing people
> to run non-free software on Debian machines, but not provide them.)
> So it is *logically inconsistent* for us to even *consider* not
> distributing non-free software?
Not required, though we have commited to it, for very practical
> We really need to think about the message we're sending. Our users
> seem to be completely confused about what Debian stands for.
I believe the social contract states this pretty well. Maybe it should
be presented during an install, much like a user agreement (though without
forcing the user to agree by it).