Re: Draft vote on constitutional issues
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:09 +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>>> Either Social Contract section one and the DFSG prohibit the
>>> distribution of a non-free blob in the release, or they do not.
>> This 'in the release' is bogus, I guess you mean in 'main'?
> Debian is only free software. Non-free is distributed by Debian, but it
> is not part of Debian. By "in the release" I mean the released versions
> of Debian (which includes only main and optional).
We don't have a component called optional, nor do we only distribute our
>>> If they prohibit it, then it is an override to distribute
>>> notwithstanding the prohibition.
>>> If they do not prohibit it, then no resolution is necessary.
>>> You seem to say an inconsistent thing: that they do prohibit it, and we
>>> can avoid that prohibition by calling it a "practical consensus" instead
>>> of an "override". Surely, however, it is the effect that matters, and
>>> not the label you give it.
>> Well that's the thing with goals, they are not strict rules, but we do
>> try to reach them (though not at all cost) ...
> Perhaps you should propose an amendment to our Social Contract, which
> speaks not of goals and aims, but of promises. Indeed, the point behind
> the language of *contract* is that these are not merely goals, but firm
> promises. You presumably would support an amendment to section one of
> the social contract, changing it from a promise into a statement of a
> goal. But such an amendment has not yet been passed, and your clear
> declaration that you are not willing abide by the social contract as
> written is troubling.
It's already included in there: Debian will remain 100% free. As we're
only improving, I don't see how it's not a goal as we were never 100%
free, we are not 100% free and probably will never be 100% free.