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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract

> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:51:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > If I were to propose a rewrite the social contract, it'd probably look
> > something like:
> [...]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 05:28:31AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I wonder why nobody talks about "we will support people running LSB
> binaries".

You mean people running free software which happens to run on LSB?

Or do you mean people running non-free software which happens to run
on LSB?

Seems to me, both are covered already in some of the social contract
drafts -- albeit, without mentioning any standards or versions by name.

[Ok, perhaps the idea of leaving our definition of "free software" out
of the social contract is an exercise in stupidity -- nonetheless, I
can't figure out any third classification which LSB binaries might fall.]


Reply to: