Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 04:24:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > 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?
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:41:48AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> I would for one. I don't believe it is our responsibility to distribute
> and provide non-free packages, but I also do not believe that we need to
> halt distributing the packages currently in that archive. Removing the
> statement from the SC simply removes the obligation to provide the
> archive in the future, it doesn't mandate it.
In other words, you approve of removing non-free, starting with some
future releases of debian, but keeping non-free in our historical
Perhaps, if there's enough people who agree that this is the right
thing to do, this should be made an explicit amendment? [Of particular
interest would be the criteria for deciding when to drop non-free,
though this might be left as an open question.]