what is main?
>>>>> Collins M Ben writes:
JC> I object to what I feel would be a policy which narrows the
JC> definition of "truly free" software beyond that which the social
JC> contract and DFSG currently provide.
BC> My two little pennies worth. I'm sort of against the "pure"
BC> concept, but only because main is _supposed_ to be pure, by it's
BC> own definition.
I would be happy with either way. Here's my current vote:
[1] TOSS THINGS INTO CONTRIB
[2] NEW PURE DISTRIBUTION
[ ] STATUS QUO
BC> My opinion, get back to the roots of our goals and gut main to
BC> meet the standards that Debian was built on.
I agree completely. I'm proposing `pure' as a rational alternative
that forces the issue to get us out of the rut of the status quo.
BC> Don't water down the issues or pretty soon we will have "holy,
BC> pure, main, dusty, dirty, trash, non-free, pure-evil, and
BC> satanic" sections.
Hrmm... we wouldn't need `satanic', since it would only contain
Beelzebub, which is a single binary. Actually, neither `pure-evil'
nor `satanic' wouldn't be necessary, either, since we wouldn't be
allowed to distribute them royalty-free. ;)
--
Gordon Matzigkeit <gord@fig.org> //\ I'm a FIG (http://www.fig.org/)
Committed to freedom and diversity \// I use GNU (http://www.gnu.org/)
Reply to: