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

Re: [Proposal] Updating the Social Contract

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 11:27:14AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.

This is exactly why we have to decide what we want to do, and then
modify the social contract accordyingly.


Sven Luther

Reply to: