On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:40:59 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their > > users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]." > > > > (I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded) > > How about "... we provide support infrastructure for non-free packages > [..]."? That's better :) > > Would that be clearer? > > Yes. It doesn't have such an obvious double-meaning. > > By the way, RMS is on record as saying that if we do the shell game of > moving non-free off of ftp-master.debian.org to > ftp-master.non-free.org would mean FSF would recommend debian. > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnuherds-app-dev/2007-10/msg00048.html > but there might be a better mail somewhere. I was one of the GnuHerds developers at the time, and have had also private mails with RMS... and that's the best mail I found in my inbox :) > If anyone wants to try to deal with these cans of worms positively, > I'll support them, but I'm not leading the charge because it doesn't > bother me as much, as long as debian is 100% free software. I'm not a DD (yet -- still in NM), so I can't help that much here. What does it take to change the wording of the Social Contract? A bug filed to "general"? Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature