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

Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)

On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 01:17:35AM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote:

> Not at all. In our *social Contract* (not the DFSG), we state that our
> users may well wish to use non-free software, and that although it
> isn't part of Debian we will provide the support and infrastructure
> for those of our users who wish to use it.

I'm glad you and I (and Joe) understand this.

But the previous post (the one I was replying to) seems to indicate
that, to put it mildly, not all of us do.

I just reread it again.  I won't say that I'm not getting some subtle
argument somewhere, but some of the statements just floor me.

"Debian stands for non-free software."

"It is a violation of the DFSG for Debian not to package non-free

I recognize that nuking non-free is a contentious issue, and I
certainly don't think ill of anyone for their position on that.  But
I'm having a problem believing that such statements as the above were
even written in a forum like this.

I'm hoping I just don't get what he's trying to say.  Otherwise, I
may just have to vote for the resolution on the grounds that we are
*really* failing to communicate to people what Debian stands for.

Reply to: