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

Re: An ammendment (Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)

On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 05:22:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
> I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.

Your amendment looks like a completely different proposal to me.

> The text of the resolution should be replaced with a call for the
> developers to resolve that:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   1) the Debian project continues to acknowledge the utility of providing
>      non-free software for it users.

It's more convenient, agreed.

>   2) the Debian project also acknowledges that some developers may be
>      unwilling or unable to explicitly work on non-free software, and
>      holds that this is not and should not be detrimental to their work
>      on the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, or their contribution to the
>      Debian project.

...  *shrug*

>   3) the Debian project considers equating the importance of the "contrib"
>      and "non-free" areas described in the Social Contract with the
>      official Debian GNU/Linux distribution inappropriate.

Whether or not we do, we should.

>   4) noting that the Debian project already distributes various other
>      collections of unofficial packages, the project endorses a move to
>      specifically collect the various other add-on components such as
>      "experimental", "orphaned", "non-free" and "contrib" and to clearly
>      separate these from the "main" collection.

Something like you suggested before?  project/woody/{contrib,non-free,etc}
seems like a good solution to me (and one that I believe has a chance in
hell of happening..  Sorry John, as much as I'd like to see Debian totally
divorcing non-free, it doesn't look likely.)

> The intention of this ammendment is to provide a means for developers to
> offer their support of the existing social contract while acknowledging
> that the current situation does indeed give somewhat too much credibility.

Something must be done.  This is something.  Therefore, this must be done.

This proposal does not have the technical limitations of John's regarding
contrib dependancies and still works toward the goal of making non-free
more clearly not part of Debian.  This is a good thing.  My message is PGP
signed for official whateverthehell procedural support applies.  Seconded,
sponsored, whatever, I honestly don't much care to look it up right now, I
have code to write.  (Free code, dammit!)

> I imagine this ammendment would be best as a separate option on the
> ballot to the original proposal, and as such it will require five seconds.

You have one.

Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@debian.org>               GnuPG key 1024D/DCF9DAB3
Debian GNU/Linux (http://www.debian.org/)         20F6 2261 F185 7A3E 79FC
The QuakeForge Project (http://quakeforge.net/)   44F9 8FF7 D7A3 DCF9 DAB3

<woot> Man, i wish knghtbrd were here to grab that for his sig list.
[...several hours later...]
<Knghtbrd> woot don't know me vewy well, do he?
<Knghtbrd> muahahahaha

Reply to: