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

Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract



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

(a) Because "support" isn't really what we're talking about here --
we're worried not about whether bugs in glibc that only appear when using
non-free software will get fixed (they will), but rather whether we'll
allow our infrastructure (archive, bts, mailing lists, etc) to be used for
non-free software.

(b) Because there's no particular reason to treat non-LSB non-free software
worse than LSB non-free software.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
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: pgpbQFIxjqeFu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: