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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 09:32:51AM +0100, Peter Makholm wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > Why then would you want to remove that text? The only reason that I can
> > see is so that that support can be dropped by some process other than
> > the formation of a consensus by supermajority.
> The you skiped over the part about ideology (which I belive the SC
> should describe) and pragmatism being different. 

That's because it doesn't make any sense. Debian's ideology has always
been that pragmatism is more important than ideology: that's why we've
said "hey, look, we strongly believe in free software, but you know,
if you don't that's fine with us, here, let us help you with that".

What you're saying above is that ideology should be *more important* than
pragmatism, since what goes in the social contract is definitively more
important than stuff that doesn't: we require new maintainers to agree
to it, we expect existing maintainers to conform to it at all times,
and we can only change it with a 3:1 vote in favour.

We already have a group that'll put ideology before everything else;
that's what the FSF is for.

> It's a distinction
> I'm not surprised that not everybody see but it is important to me.

Mmm. You're very special.

Just because supporting non-free software doesn't have any moral value
for you, doesn't mean that's the same for everyone.


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: pgprI1WFQuwye.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: