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

Re: My position, a little more precisely

On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 12:35:54PM -0700, Jim Lynch wrote:
> > 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.

(All IMHO.) "some Debian maintainers" suggests internal bickering
about the issue. It's bad form. We can expect with several hundred
maintainers, that "we support" will not refer to everyone, in whatever
context (not just this one).

The part about individual developers has no place in the social contract.
It belongs in the developers' reference, or the new maintainer information,
or whatever.

The social contract doesn't say every developer has to be supportive
of non-free. It just means we're allowed to, and those of you who
don't like it should live and let live. No power freaks required;
I don't like to be told by you and John Goerzen which packages
I can maintain.

Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Reply to: