Re: Social Contract GR's Affect on sarge
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:13:53 -0700, Matt Zimmerman <email@example.com> said:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 12:06:05PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 01:49:12 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
>> > 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.
> I do not see how it can be maintained that these were "editorial
> changes" when there is clearly a significant number of developers
> who believe that the meaning of the Social Contract was changed (to
> the point of forcing action that was not forced before).
The reason I can maintain that the title was correct when the
issue was voted was that, unlike you, I am not telepathic; that no
one raised this issue while the vote was on, even the opponents, and
I just see a bunch of people whining after the fact when they realize
their apathy lead them to an end result they are unhappy with.
"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <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