Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[Raul Miller <moth@debian.org>]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:39:17AM -0600, Chad Walstrom wrote:
> The purpose of these ammendments is to increase the SC's resistance to
> misinterpretation.  I honestly disagree with the intended intrepretation
> of Raul's proposals, thereby enforcing my opinion that they fall short
> of their goal.  This is not a slight to you, Raul, just the proposals.

I understand.

I myself am not happy with every post I've made, though I'm willing to
keep trying till I get it right.

> I agree with Raul's assertion that Debian is a project and not "just" a
> distribution.  I realize this contradicts my earlier statement that
> Debian, by definition is a distribution.  However, it is a community
> built around a distribution of software, a "collection of *.debs".  I
> don't believe it contradicts the idea that Debian's central goal is to
> produce a quality, free, as in libre, distribution of software.

Thanks.

> So, let's focus on making the SC less resistant to misinterpretation.

Ok:

You've stated that you disagree with my intended interpretation of the SC.
I believe the concept in question is that we're promising to distribute
in 100% free form software systems which have been in 100% free form.

In other words, I'm thinking that the SC is a promise that we won't
"go commercial" relying on the number of people who are locked into our
system to boost our sales.

There's more to the SC than that, but I think that captures the essence
of part 1 -- this includes the current subtitle, and the emphasis on
the DFSG and on not making free things depend on non-free things.

If you disagree with this interpretation, perhaps you could state yours?

Thanks,

-- 
Raul