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

Re: Non-Free proposal -- yet another draft

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:23:57AM -0600, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:42:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Raul. This is a very different proposal that the ones that were
> > discussed in the past, and one that merely keeps non-free, without
> > putting any more compulsive engagement to work on making every single
> > piece of non-free software obsolet.
> I've gone through what seems like several dozen proposals, so there are
> going to be differences.
> > Could you provide some rationale as to why you choose to modify your
> > previous proposals until this point, and what does this really win us
> > over the status quo ?
> The fundamental rationale is described in
>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html
> However, I received some criticism -- perhaps valid -- that "the Debian
> system" was itself too ambiguous to stand by itself.  Also, since I
> needed an extra sentence to associate that with main, it seemed simpler
> to just use "Debian Main" as the noun phrase.
> If the social contract is guarantees about main (which is what we've
> always taken it to be), then the psuedo-conflict in the social contract
> which keeps giving rise to the "drop non-free" discussions goes away.
> At least from my point of view -- do you see anything remaining in the
> social contract which would support the idea that there's some conflict
> between my proposed social contract and non-free?

So, the proposed vote would be : 

1) Esthetical fixes : [ ] Yes, let's do it
                      [ ] No, please keep it as it always was
		      [ ] Further discussion

and then, the real vote would be : 

2) Non-free issue : [ ] Let's drop section 5 of the SC, and remove non-free
                        from our archive
                    [ ] Let's change all Debian into Debian System or
		        Debian Main or whatever, and continue
			distributing non-free as we always did
		    [ ] Further discussion (the status quo, so let's
		        continue distributing non-free as we always have)

In that case, i believe that maybe my original proposal would be a
worthy addition to this second ballot. Which would allow us to keep
non-free, but still make additional engagement to clearly mark non-free
packages as currently distributing, but as soon as a free replacement is
there we will ditch it, and please try the following alternatives.


Sven Luther

Reply to: