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

Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)



** On Jun 10, Joseph Carter scribbled:
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:12:11PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The general resolution to abolish non-free is flawed in a number of ways.
> 
> Perhaps..
> 
> 
> > It weakens the social contract
> > ==============================
> > 
> > The social contract is one of the foundations on which Debian users
> > base their expectations for Debian's future directions. Up until now,
> > Debian users could rely on having both a fully functional and free
> > distribution available to them and a number of non-free components that
> > they may require. While we will, with the proposed changes, continue to
> > acknowledge our users' needs for non-free software, we will no longer
> > make any attempt to satisfy them.
> 
> Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software?  The
> social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard.  We say
> Debian is 100% free software and yet it isn't really.  Debian has been
> providing non-free software and people expect this of us now.  When we
> start tossing around the idea of changing that, it becomes obvious that
> many of us don't really mean for Debian to be 100% free software.
I would suspect that you should already know what many said before on that
topic. Non-free is supposedly NOT a part of the Debian DISTRIBUTION, so
Debian IS 100% free software, isn't it?? What most people opposed to the GR
are afraid of is that the non-free would be taken away from the Debian
*infrastrucure* which is NOT identical to the *Debian distribution*. If the
facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
the whole point - the GR is a purely political move (and not a very clean,
moral and right one...)

regards,
  marek

Attachment: pgpRwEP8g2k3R.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: