On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 05:06:53PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I think that this interpretation is better served by text similar to
> > that which AJ suggested.
> If it were accompanied by an official definition of "The Debian
> Distribution", I'd be happy with AJ's proposal. Without that definition
> I don't think it's adequate.
Well, I was going for minimal changes (well, and some trivial updates like
dropping "FTP" and "GNU/Linux"), and atm the social contract doesn't define
"Debian" (as distinct from "the Debian Project"), "the Debian GNU/Linux
Distribution" or "the system".
> Also, personally, I think "Debian System" or "Debian Systems" would be a
> better term to define
I thought about that, but outside of discussions of the social contract
(which says "make the /system/ depend"), I've only ever heard people
talk about "Debian" or "the Debian distribution", so the latter seemed
like the one that'd be most obvious to most people.
> (alluding to operating systems -- and emphasizing
> that the software is something that is supposed to work together, not
> just something we distribute)
Yeah, I don't think that's something we should be worrying about as far
as keeping or removing non-free is concerned though.
For comparison, from the social contract rewrite I mentioned a while ago,
] We will build a free operating system
]
] We will create and provide an integrated system of free software that
] anyone can use. We will make all our work publically available as free
] software. We will accept and support the use of the Debian
] distribution by all users for all purposes, without discrimination.
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/social_contract.html
Cheers,
aj
--
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 could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature