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

Re: non-free and users?

On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 02:59:51AM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> >I think that should be a per-developer decision, not something for the
> >social contract.
> There is a problem with changing Social Contract in the way which will 
> hurt any developer which already agrees with the old version. That is 
> why my very first question was "Is distributing non-free compatible with 
> Debian developer ethics?". 

By definition it is. Debian developer ethics *require* the distribution
of non-free software. Defining what our ethics are is what the social
contract is all about.

If you think refraining from distributing non-free software would
be *more* ethical, that's fine; but claiming our social contract is
inconsistent, self-contradictory, or hypocritical just doesn't aid in
that debate.

Another of our ethics, which isn't in the social contract but is in the
constitution, is the principle that we don't require anyone to work on
anything -- so you don't get to consider yourself "harmed" when someone
else chooses to work on non-free software instead of free software,
or chooses not to work on Debian at all.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

               Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
           http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: