On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 12:18:11PM -0800, Adam McKenna wrote: > Why you continue to use the semantic argument that "non-free is not part of > Debian now" continues to puzzle me. Lots of people think that non-free *is* part of "Debian". > What are you hoping to accomplish with > this line of reasoning? An illustration that our practices, despite our best efforts, tend to create an impression that we don't really abide by our principles as described in the Social Contract. > What does it have to do with the issue at hand? An (attempt at) avoidance of the appearance of hypocrisy. > Unless the Social Contract has changed recently, then I would expect that > anyone who "claims to adhere" to it would support the existence of contrib > and non-free, since 5 *explicitly* states that we will provide our users > with access to this software. Which is exactly what John's GR proposes to amend. > It's really irrelevant that you maintain non-free packages. I don't know why > people (you included) keep bringing it up. Tell that to the folks who imply that John is hypocritical for doing so, and use that ad homimem implication as a means of attempting to undermine support for the General Resolution. (The implication being that John Is A Bad Person for Telling Us To Do As He Says And Not As He Does, and Therefore What He Says Must Be As Bad As He Is.) > It takes something that people have access to now and shuts it off. I bet > when your hot water stops working, you're on the phone with a plumber within > an hour. Why? You don't need it, you can get just as clean with cold > water. So, it is your contention that Debian is operating something like a public utility by distributing (some) packages that do not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines. That is a perspective that should be elaborated upon. -- G. Branden Robinson | "Why do we have to hide from the Debian GNU/Linux | police, Daddy?" email@example.com | "Because we use vi, son. They use http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | emacs."
Description: PGP signature