On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 02:13:25PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote:
> > I agreed with the social contract, but I think it should be
> > changed. Some parts are just wrong, other things are confusing.
>
> That certainly looks like a contradiction to me. How do you agree with
> it if you feel it's wrong?
By knowing the date it was written and what they actually meant
instead of what they actually have written down. (For example, they
meant non-free but they wrote commercial). And I'm not the only one, I
know more Debian developers who don't really support non-free and
would rather see it removed.
> > To talk about the social contract, our priorities are free software
> > and our users. Somebody is having problems with non-free
> > software. What is wrong with telling him that the kind of problems
> > he's having is normal with non-free software and say that there are 2
> > free alternatives in Debian which would probably not have those
> > problems?
>
> Nothing is wrong with that. However, that isn't what you said.
I did say it, although a bit unfriendly.
> * Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote:
> > It's your own fault. You choosed to run non-free software, now you get
> > the consequences. Debian doesn't support vmware, so go somewhere else
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > with your vmware problems. (Debian does support plex86 and bochs, BTW)
>
> That's the original message you sent which *is* wrong. Debian supports
> its users regardless of if they run non-free software or not. In fact,
> we specifically support their running of non-free software and we
> provide infrastructure (such as our mailing lists) for them.
Does Debian support vmware? So if Debian does support that, where is
it written down that Debian supports every piece of non-free software?
Of course you can say that in the social contract says "Thus, although
non-free software isn't a part of Debian, we support its use," but if
I interpret that correctly, it just means the non-free software
packages provided by Debian. And this actually my major complaint with
the social contract, it's too vague to actually agree or disagree with
it. I just interpretted it in the way I think was meant and agreed,
because that is a lot easier than trying to change the social
contract.
Jeroen Dekkers
--
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgptzHDublFtq.pgp
Description: PGP signature