* Jeroen Dekkers (jeroen@dekkers.cx) wrote: > > 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. We can all claim to know the intent of the original authors but what they actually wrote down is what everyone who joins the project is asked to agree to. Developers are not asked "Have you agreed with the intent of the authors of the Social Contract?" because (in steps reality) no one really knows the intent of the original authors except (maybe) the original authors themselves (who, of course, may have disagreed with each other in their intent anyway). There has been debate about that in the past, yes, though I think it's been more about the actual non-free ftp space and whatnot than about users being allowed to run non-free software on Debian and expecting to still be treated with respect and as a user of Debian. If you want the Social Contract changed then work on changing it. Do not act as if Debian follows your 'New Social Contract' instead of the existing one. You mislead people into thinking you're right when you're not. > > > 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. No, you said 'go somewhere else' to a Debian user asking a question about a Debian change which broke an application they used. That's quite different from saying "there are 2 free alternatives in Debian" or any of what else you claimed to have said above. > > * 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? Debian supports users running non-free software by way of allowing them to ask questions on our mailing lists and use our bug tracking system. At the same Debian is a volunteer organization and individual developers are not required to respond to questions they don't want to. > 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. Obviously you have some odd ideas about how to interpret that line. Debian specifically says "non-free software" is not a part of Debian. Additionally there exists "free software" which is not a part of Debian. We support the use of both on Debian systems. We are also kind enough to even host some non-free software on our sites for the benefit of our users but that doesn't mean that the "non-free software" our users are allowed to run is limited to that subset of software. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpGbElX4KRxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature