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

Re: Candidate social contract amendments (part 1: editorial)



On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 01:03:50AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 19:10:49 +0000, Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> said: 
> 
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 02:56:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the
> >> > document called the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We will
> >> > support people who create or use non-free works on Debian, but we
> >> > will never make the system require the use of a non-free
> >> > component.
> >>
> >> No promise, implied or otherwise, that Debian itself will actually
> >> follow these guidelines.

> > I think at least one of us has missed the point here.

> 	The current social contract starts out by affirming that we
>  shall keep the Debian distribution (which, often, is contracted to
>  just Debian, but hey) entirely free, and goes on to state what we
>  call free software. It further goes on to say that software written
>  by, or for, the Debian system by the project (well, perhaps, by the
>  humans who are members of the project, since we are being anal;l
>  retentive) shall also follow these guidelines (again, the Debian
>  system, for you information, is also contracted to just Debian, out
>  there in the boonies).

And, uh.... which bit do you feel is not adequetely represented in the
proposed new text? Or did I already fix it?

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: