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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 09:01:15AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> On Nov 2, 2003, at 00:04, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >	What do you mean, without a mandate?  If the GR passes with a
> > landslide, woudn't that be a mandate?
> Would you be happy if Branden added a clause along the lines of:
> 	Further, the acceptance of the GR is not intended as a mandate
> 	to actually remove the non-free or contrib sections of our
> 	FTP archive.

For reference, I wouldn't be. Either:

	Further, non-free and contrib shall be removed from the archive,
	and no longer supported by the Debian project.


	Further, non-free and contrib shall continue to be supported by
	the Debian project.

on the other hand would be unobjectionable. If you confuse those two
points, whichever happens (non-free staying or being removed), one or
the other group is going to (justifiably IMO) feel cheated. Put both on
the ballot if you like. But clarity is a good thing.


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: pgp2EF_Kd3iiC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: