Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)
On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Rogoyski <email@example.com> writes:
> Adam> Please read section 5 of the social contract. Debian is a
> Adam> platform for non-free software. If it were not, parts of
> Adam> Debian would be violation of points 5 and 6 of the Debian
> Adam> Free Software Guidelines, and Debian would not be able to be
> Adam> released as free software. It is supported in the social
> Adam> contract and DFSG.
> How would this violate the DFSG, pray tell?
The statement was that "Debian is not a platform for free-software" or
to that liking. The social contract clearly states that "we support its
use", and even goes further stating that "we provide infrastructure
(such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists) for non-free
software packages. Clearly, if we went to such measures as to make Debian
a platform not for non-free software (as what the origianal post was
addressing), Debian would then be in violation of the guidelines. This
discussion has drifted slighly since the original posting.
> >> I do not stand for non-free software in general.
> Adam> Debian does,
> See? This is a *very* *good* reason for splitting non-free out of
> Debian, if Debian's users think that "Debian stands for non-free
> The Social Contract starts with "Debian Will Remain 100% Free
> Software". And the way I understand constitutions and such (and the
> Social Contract is a kind of "Grundgesetz"), the *order* of clauses
> *is* significant.
I would say clause 2 is more important than clause 1. I would also say
that all are important and cannot be ignored on the grounds of which was
stated first in the document. As I have agreed to all them, I feel the
only way to uphold them is to continue in the manner as we have, and not
follow up with the plans in this proposed resolution.