Re: "keep non-free" proposal
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: "keep non-free" proposal
- From: Gustavo Noronha Silva <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 13:41:25 -0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20040128180714.U29786@links.magenta.com>
- References: <20040127002838.G23413@links.magenta.com> <20040127163720.GA31250@wookimus.net> <20040128011701.N29786@links.magenta.com> <20040128163917.GD31250@wookimus.net> <20040128180714.U29786@links.magenta.com>
Em Wed, 28 Jan 2004 18:07:14 -0500, Raul Miller <email@example.com> escreveu:
> 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.
That may be what we're promising now, but what I would like to see
the social contract state is that we are not going to distribute or promote
non-free software or software which is dependent on non-free software.
That means we're going to remove contrib and non-free sections from
the FTP servers (interested parties can create a separate association
to maintain packages of stuff they like in non-free.org).
That means also that we are not going to adopt or promote a non-free
installer or any kind of non-free "add-ons" for our system.
That does not mean we're going to work proactively in making it impossible
to use non-free stuff in the system we distribute, or that we are not going
to worry about stuff that is vital to binary-only non-free stuff, like binary-level
compatibility with other major players, like red hat, by following the LSB.
What Anthony Towns wanted to express in one of his messages, I
believe, was that we're probably missing the point here. What is it that
we're trying to solve on the social contract?
If we want to decide on the drop of non-free and contrib from the FTP
server and the modification of the 5th clause to simply state that we,
although not distributing non-free stuff ourselves, will work on
maintaining the technical base working for people who need to install
That's the view I would like to see represented in a proposal. It's not
about 'not making free stuff non-free' at all.
firstname.lastname@example.org: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
"Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"