Re: A transition plan to fsf-linux.org
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 02:07:21PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> One point why I am a 'remove non-free proponent' is because I feel that
> the 'keep non-free proponents' failed to actually cut down on non-free's
> size in the past.
And if you surgically remove your body from your neck down, you'll
lose weight. However, just as "lose weight" is not a universal good,
"cut down on size" is not a universal good.
That said, I'm not sure how you measure size -- number of packages?
[Then merging packages cuts down in size]. Number of bytes? [Then
throwing out documentation and internationalization cuts down in size.]
Which also illustrates the lack of anything generically good to this idea.
Cutting down on size is good in specific cases -- but it's something
which requires some intelligence to do right.
> And the repeated proposals by Raul sure give me the impression that the
> 'keep non-free proponents' want to change the Social Contract.
Well, Raul does. See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html
for my current best effort at describing why and how. But I can think
of at one person who has spoken out in favor of non-free who has not
spoken out in favor of any changes in the social contract.
However, Raul does not want to introduce changes to the social contract
which change the direction of the project.
Note also that none of my proposals have been introduced -- in part,
that's because I keep introducing new ones (Andrew had his proposal
posted, and stable, for about a month before it was introduced).
But in part it's because the proposals themselves have had various flaws.
If nothing else, *I* think they've been flawed, which is why I've proposed
new ones.
--
Raul
Reply to: