On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
>
> Also consider that pulling gcc from main would fracture the project; it
> would become literally impossible to build a completely free OS, given
> that the whole ball of wax would depend on a non-free compiler.
>
> So, we change either the status quo, or the DFSG, or issue
> clarifications on why the status quo (with GFDL-licensed components)
> doesn't violate the DFSG.
Where "clarification" reads as "redefinition". You can't do that without
a supermajority GR, as determined by the Debian Project Secretary the last
time an attempt to modify the Social Contract/DFSG document was made.
(Personally, I think that was a very unwise precedent to set.. Who has
the authority to change it? Does Manoj, as the current secretary?)
--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@bluecherry.net> You're entitled to my opinion
<rcw> those apparently-bacteria-like multicolor worms coming out of
microsoft's backorifice
<rcw> that's the backoffice logo
Attachment:
pgpQ_ZilaQ2L3.pgp
Description: PGP signature