[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section

On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 10:01:24PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> This is exactly what I mean when I say that the compromise embedded in
> section 5 of the SC has broken down.  That compromise allows for
> non-free to be hosted on Debian, but also says it is "not a part of
> Debian".

Again, it only says that in the context of explicit clarification, both
by having earlier said that non-free's "not a part of the Debian system",
and noting that "we support its use, and we provide infrastructure for
[it]". Who's we? "The Debian Project", "an association of individuals who
have made common cause to create a free operating system".

> Party A thought it didn't matter to them what things were called, but
> was very concerned that non-free software be made available from the
> Debian servers, and using the Debian infrastructure.

Please speak for yourself. I think it's very important that we have
logical names for things, and I don't see anything in the social contract
that mandates the utterly illogical requirement that the phrase "non-free
is part of Debian" may never be uttered, even when it's clear that's
referring to the project, not the distribution.

> Now this is a reasonable compromise.

That might be, but it's certainly not one I've agreed to, nor one that's
explicit in the social contract, which I have agreed to.

> I think that Party B made the far more serious concession here,

The grass is always greener, isn't it?

> and I
> find it repugnant that the current Party A people would like to take
> away even the tiny concession about language which they made.  

The "concession" you seem to have forgotten is that main is actually
free of partially free software, no matter how necessary, useful, or
close to being free it was at the time.

This argument is really a much stronger one in favour of removing non-free
docs immediately than about nuances of phrasing, although that too would
be a change in the actual agreement.

> Appropriate language may not matter to you; it obviously doesn't
> matter to Craig, but it does matter to some of us, 

If you were to actually use appropriate language, rather than creating a
new political correctness that might actually be relevant.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

             Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: