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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:11:41PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> It seems to me, then, that we are already in practice treating non-free
> as less important than the main distribution.  Moreover, we have been
> doing so for quite some time.
> In this sense, the removal of clause 5 from the Social Contract would
> simply seem to be an acknowledgement of the status quo, similar to my
> proposed amendment to clause 3.

You seem to be saying that parts of the social contract which are less
important than other parts should be removed from the social contract.

> You'll note that my proposed amendment includes the language:
>      We will support our users who develop and run non-free software on
>      Debian, but we will never make the system depend on an item of
>      non-free software.

Like Anthony, I'm concerned that this says nothing about us distributing
non-free software.  It's entirely possible to interpret your amendment
as forbidding the distribution of non-free software [without violating
the above language].  "Of course we support users of non-free software --
XYZZY runs fine on our glibc."

I urge you to consider language which allows the ftp archive maintainers
distribute non-free software from debian mirrors should they deem this a
good idea.  Specifically, one which aligns with the ideals expressed in:

> It is thus not true that, if my proposed amendment passes, that we're
> encouraged to tell users of non-free software on Debian systems to go
> take a flying leap.  We will continue to do what we can for them.

Taking a flying leap isn't the issue.  The issue is what would the social
contract allow us to do.

[In the past, various people have said that Ian Jackson's original draft
of the constitution was awful because of ambiguities contained therein.
I thought you were one of them?  Anyways, I don't know why you're pushing
so hard for a social contract with this kind of ambiguity in it.]


Reply to: