Re: Subject: Proposal - keep non-free, but commit to actively encouraging making individual packages obsolet
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> +Still, we will actively encourage users of non-free software to migrate to
> +free alternatives when they are available, and either encourage the upstream
> +authors to modify their licence to a DFSG-free one and/or encourage the
> +development of free alternatives to a point where they can replace the
> +non-free software when they are not.
I don't see why this should be necessary. I'd expect every DD who
maintains a package in non-free to have done exactly this for years now,
why should we put it into the Social Contract again (after saying that
our priorities are Free Software [and our users])?
Another point to note is that adding five more lines to the fifth clause
would make that non-free clause take up around 40% of the Social
Contract. After reading it, that non-free bit might have settled in the
mind of the casual user as a major point (as he read it at the end).