Re: Clarifications
On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 07:07:46PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of confusion in the list right now. Let me
> clarify a few points:
>
> 1. Debian GNU/Linux does not inlucde non-free and never has. My
> proposed General Resolution will have no effect on the distribution.
> This bears repeating. This GR will have NO EFFECT on the distribution.
red herring.
it will seriously affect our users.
> 2. Section 4.1 of the Constitution specifically gives us (the
> developers) the power to carry out this action.
it doesn't.
> 3. None of the promises originally made will be broken by it.
bullshit.
> 4. Debian was created with the cause of creating a free operating
> system. So says our Constitution. Distributing non-free software
> falls outside that definition, and the spirit of our organization.
no, it doesn't. our social contract (which is the statement of
principles which our constitution is based on) specifically clearly
promises that we will provide support and infrastructure for our users
who need to use non-free software.
> 5. Not distributing non-free software does not mean that non-free
> software cannot be easily used in Debian.
the whole point of your proposal is to ghettoise non-free even more than
it already is and make it difficult to use in debian.
> 6. This proposal is made on my own accord and does not represent the
> interests of any other party.
you're right here. it certainly does NOT represent the interests of any
other party. it is actively destructive to the interests of many other
parties.
> I advance it because I believe it is the best for Debian.
anyone can be wrong. you are, in this particular instance.
> 7. Item number 1 in the Social Contract is "Debian Will Remain 100%
> Free Software". This is right. It's what we're about. We're not
> about non-free.
items number 4 & 5 in the same document clearly state that we will support
our users' need for free software, and provide infrastructure for same.
this is intentional, not a mistake or an oversight. if there was any
conflict between clause 1 and clauses 4 & 5 then we would never have
written the latter in the first place.
> 8. This proposal does not break any promises or goals laid out in the
> Social Contract. It does only alter the mechanics by which they are
> carried out.
bullshit. it breaks the promise by abandoning any support for our users'
needs for free software, and it reneges on the promise to provide
infrastructure for it.
> 9. Much effort has been made to ensure that the delta to that document
> is as small as possible.
irrelevant. tiny changes can have far reaching consequences. in the case
of your proposal, those consequences are highly destructive.
> 10. The Social Contract is not intended to be, nor can it be,
> immutable.
it's not intended to be shat upon, either. any changes to it should
only be in the nature of clarification of any perceived ambiguity, not
wholesale reversal of the intent.
> 11. My proposal does not ban the use of BTS, mailinglists, or other
> Debian infrastructure -- short of actually distributing the software
> -- from being used for the continued maintenance of non-free software.
so what? your proposal does the major part of the damage - anything that
follows is trivial in comparison.
> 12. My proposal does not require that non-free be removed from
> potato. That decision is placed with the DPL, release manager, or
> archive managers as appropriate.
non-free isn't in potato, so how could it be removed from it?
non-free is a separate entity within the debian archives which has no
relationship to any release.
craig
--
craig sanders
Reply to: