Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Andrew Suffield <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 06:40:47PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> This resolution violates the social contract
> And that's simply false. Not that it matters (there is no rule that
> says GRs are required to comply with the social contract).
To state the obvious:
"5. Programs That Don't Meet Our Free-Software Standards
We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs that
don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have created
"contrib" and "non-free" areas in our FTP archive for this software."
I don't see how removing of a part of the project described in the SC
wouldn't violate it but English is not my native language so I guess
I'm misunderstaning something.
Of course, like you said, Social Contract is subject to GR's. As it is
a Foundation Document and as such requires a 3:1 majority to be
superseded, I would like this GR to be called something like "Change
of Social Contract: Removal of non-free" so it would be more obvious
to everybody that this is not a "normal" GR.
* Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) *
* PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer *