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

Re: Negative Summary of the Split Proposal

On Jul 03, Raul Miller wrote:
> Eh?  So we're voting on an issue that's not even going to be on the
> ballot?

No.  But this issue (A) does represent a change in our policy toward
non-free software, which moves us closer to position B (purging
references to non-free and contrib).  So, do we want to move toward B,
or do we not want to move toward B?

Philosophically consistent positions that are possible:

Support A, Support B (RMS)

Support A, Oppose B (presumably what happens if 1 wins)

Oppose A, Oppose B (current position of project)

A and B have a common underlying issue.  We can argue that A is a less
extreme position than B, but both positions are in the same direction
from current practice.

On a continuum of support-opposition to non-free software... not to
scale of course.

<Support                      Oppose>

|       |      |       A        B   |
Caldera RHS    Debian             RMS

[..] represents the range of positions Debian could conceivably take.
Note we can't move very far to the left (nor should we), since we
don't distribute commercial software ourselves and therefore can't
reasonably license it.  About the only thing we could do is eliminate
the non-free/contrib/main distinction, which I think would be a

On the ballot at hand: I have no problem with ballot position 2; it
appears to satisfy RMS's needs and does not compromise our social
contract (nor does it change our position on that continuum above in
any real sense).  It is extra work for someone, however, so I will not
rank it first.

|          Chris Lawrence         |       Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs       |
|     <quango@watervalley.net>    |        http://www.lordsutch.com/        |
|                                 |                                         |
|     Grad Student, Pol. Sci.     |      Visit the Amiga Web Directory      |
|    University of Mississippi    |     http://www.cucug.org/amiga.html     |

Reply to: