Re: "keep non-free" proposal
On 6 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> In which case, it's gone. We currently have a distribution which is
> not 100% Free Software, as our contract promised. We should fix that.
I don't understand how you can say that.
My memory is a little bad, but when I joined there certainly was a
non-free section but there was no social contract or DFSG. Those came
later. I even remember an entirely pragmatic reason for non-free - it
contained things that a CD vendor could not safely put on CD. Eventually
the DFSG and Social Contract came about, but my recollection is that in
true Debian style they were both largely codifications of current practice
and did not directly conflict with anything the project was already doing.
The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
persue a political goal of 100% free software.
non-free didn't suddenly appear at some point after the social contract,
it existed at the time the SC was published and the SC was designed to
allow for it. This should be self evident because the SC was not a
statement of future goals, but of the current status quo. So I don't
think we have broken any promises. The problem is that many years later it
isn't entirely clear what the promises were.
Jason
Reply to: