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

Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> said: 

> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 10:29:51AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > No, the exception is _entirely_ due to the fact that we don't
>> > require documentation, data, or firmware to be free. And
>> > debian-legal is not a delegated body, and is unable to make
>> > decisions of their own that have any relevance to Debian -- those
>> > decisions are made by the DPL, and the appointed delegates in
>> > charge of handling the archive.
>> I am surprised to hear you say that, since I would personally have
>> thought that was against the spirit of the social contract.

> I'm sorry, you're mistaken. It was against Andrew's interpretation
> of the social contract. It wasn't against mine, nor to the best of

	It certainly was against what I took the social contract to
 be. I never imagined that Debian was about only part of main being
 free, indeed, as Bruce has stated, I, too, was under the impression
 that the  SC and the DFSG applied to everything on the Debian CD.

> my knowledge the interpretation of anyone else responsible in that
> area.

	I hasve no idea who you think are people responsible in those

> I'm sorry if you feel reasonable people can't hold such
> opinions.

	Don't put words in my mouth; I said I was surprised, not that
 you can't hold whatever surprising opinions you may.

 ps: my sig generator is eerily on topic
Knowledge, sir, should be free to all! Harry Mudd, "I, Mudd", stardate
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: