Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 12:38:49PM -0400, Adam McKenna wrote:
> > 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.
Er, the maintainers maintaining non-free packages will get to vote on this.
Maybe I don't understand what you meant...
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification