Re: thoughts on potential outcomes for non-free ballot
> >>> On top of that, we used to distribute shareware. We stopped --
> >>> that's not useless to our users, but indicates something about
> >>> our existing practices.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 06:11:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> >> Was there a change in current practices to cause it, or is it just a
> >> choice?
> On 2004-01-24 18:16:01 +0000 Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure -- this is an old memory.
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 11:20:27PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> It seems from recent discussion on this list that it is an incorrect
> one.
Exactly.
> (Please switch off your attribution mangler.)
I'm not sure what you mean.
> > Anyways, I'm dropping this issue, and am working on a redraft
> > of my proposal which doesn't include that phrase.
>
> Thank you! Why?
Because Anthony Towns showed me some examples where it wouldn't make
sense.
> Please will you reintroduce the phrase "The software in these
> directories [contrib and non-free] is not part of the Debian system"?
I'm considering that. However, I feel that if I do so I should also
include a definition of what "the Debian system" means.
> Please will you agree to propose your changes to sections 1-4 (at
> least) as an amendment to the editorial GR rather than the remove
> non-free GR?
I'm dropping changes to sections 2-4.
However, section 1 explicitly mentions non-free, and some of the ambiguity
in the social contract about non-free is present there.
--
Raul
Reply to: