Re: GR: Removal of non-free
Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> writes:
> > > Read the proposed resolution carefully, and note the tenses in
> > > particular. It's carefully written so as not to conflict with the
> > > social contract (as currently written); the practical implications are
> > > just modified in the presence of clause 5.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 12:00:02PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > "Uploads to the non-free section of the archive will be disabled as
> > soon as is feasible. The Debian project will cease active support of
> > the non-free section."
> >
> > This does sound to me like not supporting the use of non-free software
> > and not providing infrastructure for it. I guess I still qualify for
> > the thicko-of-the-week prize but I do think that it goes against
> > clause 5 of the SC.
On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 06:01:05PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> Note that both of those sentences are future tense, and do not set a
> time limit. They're at least as legitimate as any resolution that
> modifies the social contract (which, by definition, will not strictly
> comply with the version in force at the time the GR is passed).
This proposal seems to me to be intellectually dishonest, in the sense
that it makes worse the underlying conflicts it purports to solve.
For example "supporting the use of non-free software" includes future
tense.
And that's aside from the fact that it's feasible to disable uploads at
any time (for example, if the upload server gets hacked) -- the social
contract is more about intent than feasiblity.
Finally, there's a significant distinction between language which would
change the social contract when it receives sufficient votes and language
which would violate the social contract when it receives sufficient votes.
--
Raul
Reply to: