> > Thus, although non-free software isn't a part > > of Debian, we support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as > > our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software > > packages. > > Here's the big problem... I may -use- non-free software, but I don't want > to give it anywhere near the same amount of time and effort as I would > a free alternative. My primary objection here is with the word "support", > because I do -not-, and do not want to ever be forced to by this phrase. > > I suggest the following rewording: > > Thus, although non-free software isn't a part of Debian, there are > some Debian maintainers who support its use. There are also some who > do not. It is -not- necessary for any particular debian maintainer to > agree to be supportive of non-free software in any way whatsoever. > Having said that, it -is- allowed of a debian developer to support > non-free software. This Social Contract does NOT specify what form > that support might take. I'm just going to comment on the wording of that. It's not consistent with the wat the rest of the social contract is written. I suggest something more like this: Thus, although non-free software is not a part of Debian, some Debian maintainers might support its use, and we provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free software packages. Your version has a little too much emphasis and redundancy to fit in well with the rest of the social contract, but other than that, I agree with everything you've said. -- Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists. "Real hackers mostly think crackers are lazy, irresponsible, and not very bright, and object that being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer." -- The Hacker HOWTO Dwayne C. Litzenberger - firstname.lastname@example.org See the mail headers for GPG/advertising/homepage information.
Description: PGP signature