Re: Bug#129604: Interpreting the Social Contract, what is our priority ?
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, Jaime E. Villate wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 01:35:29PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > "main" remains entirely free software but we support non-free software.
>
> The social contract does not say that "we support non-free software".
> It says "We will support our users who develop and run non-free software
> on Debian". Not any kind of non-free software, just the one that runs on
> Debian; and we don't support the software but the users who produce it or
> use it.
The wording in the sentence you quoted from me might be a bit bad, to make
more clear what I wanted to say:
- we give some support for non-free software
- we want to make a high quality 100% free distribution
These two points are not mutual exclusive.
>...
> > Debian and e.g. the FSF have different ideologies on non-free software.
> ...
> > The social contract contains _our_ rules. Yes, we are more pragmatic and
> > less dogmatic than other people regarding free software.
>
> Are you suggesting that the FSF is more dogmatic than Debian?
> I don't agree. A lot of GNU/Linux users and developers think it is very
> dogmatic to reject perfectly free packages just because they depend on
> non-free software.
>...
IMHO Debian (as defined in the Social Contract every developer has agreed
with) is a bit more open to non-free software than the FSF is - but this
is not a judgement on which of the two is better, it's simply different.
> Regards,
> Jaime
cu
Adrian
Reply to: