Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
On 11 Jun 2000, Colin Walters wrote:
> >>>>> "Marek" == Marek Habersack <grendel@vip.net.pl> writes:
> I am curious, where do you get this idea? I have not read anything
> like this in the Debian literature.
>
> The only thing I have read that comes close to saying this is point
> four of the Social Contract, which is the very thing we are debating!
> So it seems rather circular to refer to it as authoritative.
It seems to me that the brutal truth of the matter is that the literature
was largely written by people who strive for DSFG purity and not the
pragmatics. So it has a bit of a slant to it.
Think about it, if Debian has always been about DFSG purity, then where
the heck did non-free come from in the first place??
IIRC there was not non-free software to start with, the first releases
were close to all free (by some non-dfsg definition). But then, I think,
people wanted to include things that could not go on CD's but were
FTPable, hence non-free appeared. Then the DFSG and contrib arrived. The
DFSG was because people couldn't agree on what was free enough to go in
main and contrib was that odd grey area of things that could go on CDs but
were not entirely valid without something else [and to appease people who
were upset with GPL'd stuff being bundled with non-free/main]
Jason
Reply to: