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

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

Anthony Towns wrote:
  >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
  >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
  >On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 11:03:33PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
  >> Proposed by: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
  >I wish to propose an ammendment to the proposed resolution as follows.
  >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.
  >  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.
  >  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.
  >  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.
  >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.
  >This is obviously something of a compromise position, and as such it is
  >intended to be a resolution that can be agreed to even without agreeing
  >that it's the better possibility of those offered.
  >While the implied technical changes in item (4) should not have any
  >significant negative consequences, they may be implemented in a way that
  >will provide some significant benefits: tying orphaned and experimental to
  >a particular release may make some software more accessible to users who
  >do not wish to run unstable; and setting up infrastructure for various
  >add-on components may make it more convenient to host staging areas
  >that don't quite conform to policy: in order to make Gnome packages
  >consistent, or to make IPv6 packages usable, or even to distribute
  >Debianised KDE source.
  >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.
  >Respectfully submitted,

I second/sponsor this.

Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
PGP: 1024R/32B8FAA1: 97 EA 1D 47 72 3F 28 47  6B 7E 39 CC 56 E4 C1 47
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
     "I love them that love me; and those that seek me early
      shall find me."           Proverbs 8:17

Attachment: pgpzuu5PgrnVZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: