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

Re: Seconded, sponsored. (was Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free)

On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:

> >>>>> "Adam" == Adam Rogoyski <rogoyski@cs.utexas.edu> 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[1], if Debian's users think that "Debian stands for non-free
> software".
> 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.  


Reply to: