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

Re: [Proposal] Updating the Social Contract

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 10:26:23AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> This is based on my current understanding of the issues behind the
> current discussion about non-free.
> I propose we amend section 5 of the social contract so that it reads:
>   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
>      software which satisfies our Free Redistribution guideline but not
>      all our other guidelines.  The software in these directories is an
>      optional supplement to the Debian OS which is available from the
>      "main" are of our FTP archive.  Thus, although non-free software
>      isn't the point of Debian, we support its use, and we provide
>      infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing lists)
>      for non-free software packages.
> If you think this is a bad idea, please explain what you see that need
> to be solved, and suggest how to make it better.

I would second such a proposal. But i would then propose an ammendment
that adds something like the additional paragraph :

  Furthermore, Debian will encourages the freeing of those non-free
  packages, listing the reason for the non-freeness of a given package,
  as well as proposing to our user free alternatives and listing their
  degree of replacement value as well as providing links to project
  whose aim is to provide free alternatives and. Additionnally, all
  discussion with the authors of non-free concerning the liberation of
  the packages will be archived and openly available.

Well, anyway, we all know i am not a very good writer, but you get the

And shame to those who would oppose me with word play bullshit :))


Sven Luther

Reply to: