Re: [Proposal] Updating the Social Contract
On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 05:16:37PM -0500, I wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 10:22:08AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of programs
> > | that don't conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We
> > | support interoperability standards such as "Linux System Base", and
> > | will accept bug reports where our system violates those standards.
> > = To make our system more attractive to people with mild dependencies
> > = on non-free software, we have created "contrib" and "non-free" areas
> > = in our internet archive. The software in these directories is not
> > = needed by most people, and we do not guarantee all software in the
> > = non-free area may be distributed in other ways. Thus, although
> > = we're working to reduce people's dependence on non-free software,
> > = we support users who are still dependent. Additionally, we will
> > | work to provide free alternatives to non-free software so people who
> > | use only free software can work with users of non-free software.
> > |
> > I second this proposal.
> > That said clarification of the last sentence would be nice, but maybe it can
> > go in some rationale or something.
> I'm planning on following Andrew M.A. Cater's suggestion, and will be
> extracting the content of the lines marked above with = as a part of
> the rationale for the proposal. [Those lines won't go into the social
> contract except for the last two words of the last "=" line.]
> Are you ok with that?
> Is there any additional clarification you would expect?
Hmm.. if I carry out Andrew Cater's suggetion , I would entirely get
rid of mention of our existing support for non-free.
I do want to mention non-free, because getting rid of it is Andrew's
proposal, not mine.
So I'm going to think about this a bit more.
I definitely need to update my proposal (Linux Standard Base is what LSB
stands for), but I'm less certain that pulling out the non-free section
stuff is the right thing to do.
Andrew Cater -- could you explain a bit more about why you thought
getting rid of that content was a good idea? I mean, I understand
what you're saying in a glib sense, but not when I sit back and
think about it.