On Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:01:24 +1000 Anthony Towns wrote: [...] > What I care about is having a reasonable, widely understood definition > of free software that meshes with the rest of the free software and > open source community, that Debian can use to work out what software > we'll distribute in main. Then, I think you have to start by reconciling the open source community with the free software community: OSI and FSF already have a non-negligibly different set of accepted licenses. *Red Warning* This message is from a non-DD, non-maintainer and non-applicant. As a consequence, everything I say has to be checked and double-checked. Debian developers, instead, know the truth by definition and never say anything wrong: hence, no need to check what a DD says. Seriously, could you please stop this discrimination against non-DDs? I think Debian users should have the right to express their opinions and arguments on Debian lists: whatever they say should be considered for its merits, just like it should be done for Debian developers. It's not that users are second-class citizens or Harijans: after all the Debian Social Contract is a promise made by Debian developers to the Free Software Community (which, IMO, includes free software users). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpcAro40qliX.pgp
Description: PGP signature