[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, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 17, 2000 at 09:36:46AM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > "We will be guided by the needs of our users." Our users
> > > have indicated that non-free is currently required. 
> > > And that means us developing it, not us passing it off.
> > > Which part of that is not clear to you?
> > 
> > The part where you insist that this clause is not in support of our goals
> > for totally free software is the part that I cannot agree with. And it
> > doesn't have anthing to do with a part being unclear.
> > 
> > non-free (admittedly a misnomer) HAS promoted license changes that have
> > moved packages from non-free to the main disto. This IS the purpose of
> > this clause, and it DOES work, so why insist that we destroy a working
> > process simply because you don't understand that it does not conflict with
> > Debian ideals but only with your ideals (or your understanding of how this
> > clause effects your ideals)
> I'm confused now. Was this message directed at me Dale?

My appologies. This "conversation" has gotten so convoluted that I can't
always tell what point is being made. One side quotes the same quote you
did, and draws the opposite conclusions from what you and I have, so such
statements seem to have lost their information content.

Are we at the right level of confusion to call for a vote? ;-)

> I'm in complete agreement and always have been. We need non-free
> and should continue to maintain it. I suppose Anthony's proposal
> to move its location to demote it a little. I do not support
> John's GR.

I would appreciate Anthony's proposal more is it was an addendum to the
document (explaining or opening a detailed restriction, such as expanding
FTP to cover other popular forms of download) rather than an attempt to
actually change the original contract. Thus the original intent remians as
a historical document in the original and the addendum never have more
than clarifying authority and thus can not create new, possibly
restrictive, principles.

> As I said above, "We will be guided by the needs of our users,"
> and our users have indicated that they still need non-free.
> So we need to keep maintaining it.
Some members (excluding myself) seem to think that our users are not
members of the free software community, making your quote a null content

> > I say again: "Vote no to any modifications of the spirit of this document"
> Agreed completely.

Agreement is always nice ;-)


_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide"  _-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz                   Phone:   1 (850) 656-9769
      Flexible Software              11000 McCrackin Road
      e-mail:  dwarf@polaris.net     Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Reply to: