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

Re: Non-Constitutional Voting Procedure

On Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 11:51:19AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> I think i agree with you in principle, but what do you propose to do with the
> non-free packages ? just remove them from debian disks ?

The point at issue here is not "disks" per se, but rather the act of 
_distribution_. The first (first, mind you) promise that the Social Contract
makes is that the Debian distribution will not contain free software. We are
now moving into a period where the on-line distribution of Debian is at least
as significant as the disk based distribution. My expectation is that on-line
distribution will eventually eclipse and replace physical distribution

This raises some compelling questions about what the heck we are trying to
say with the Social Contract. I think that it is clear that our overarching
mission is to provide a Linux distribution consisting entirely of free 
software. I think it is also clear that we are not to adopt an antagonistic
or counter-productive stance towards proprietary software. From the ordering
of the principles of the Social Contract, however, I think that it is clear
that the mission of producing a free distribution overrides the requirement
of aiding commercial software.

In short, I think that there are details of the fifth article of the Social
Contract that were poorly stated and need to be clarified because of certain
progress in the technologies of software distribution. The fifth article 
should be reworded to state that we are committed to aiding commercial
software vendors (or packagers) in the process of understanding and working
with our distribution. This aid of course does not include violating our
primary directive of producing and distributing an entirely free software
Linux distribution.

If you want to run free software on our system and need help understanding
what we are doing, we will help you. However, we will not distribute your
stinking capitalist dirty closed source garbage. *grin*

> What will happen to them, would they still be able to use the BTS for their
> packages ? Or should they make provision for having their own apt-gettable
> repository for people to download. I think not everyone has the ressources to
> do that.

I should think so, as this constitutes "aid" rather than "distribution".


Ean Schuessler                                                Freak
Brainfood, Inc.                                       Freak Central
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke

Reply to: