[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.

Although I don't see anything wrong with your wording, I don't see what
this amendment would actually get us if it succeeded.  The wording still
leaves open the question of whether "we have created [sections on
our ftp site]" means "we must keep these sections on our ftp site".  The
wording change also does not seem to address any of the reasons users
currently perceive non-free as part of Debian.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: