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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract



On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 08:53:40PM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> The archive admins still need to answer to the project. If they
> weren't barred from removing non-free right away (which may or may not
> be case with the proposed GR, I don't claim to know) and went ahead
> anyway they would either need to be ignorant of the immensely
> controversial nature of removing non-free or simply not care. 

What, exactly, is the point of removing non-free from the social contract,
if we're not going to remove non-free entirely?

Who, exactly, would vote for removing non-free from the social contract, but
not from the archive?

> I think it's a little far-fetched to claim that they would move ahead
> with something so clearly controversial, public, and central in
> Debian's history without a mandate.

I think it's very far-fetched to claim that a GR to remove non-free from
the social contract isn't a mandate to remove non-free from the archive.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
	-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda

Attachment: pgpP3GNgubsoa.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: