Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> No, the compromise is Debian distributes non-free packages, but it
> also has a section that's free, and anyone who doesn't like non-free is
> welcome to ignore everything else.
>
> Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than
> what things are certainly seems ignorant historically, and still seems
> pretty dubious.
It's obvious to you that what things are called is irrelevant, but it
is, in fact, one of the things that the Social Contract is concerned
with.
What you're saying is that because you disagree with the other side,
you don't have to respect the compromise at all. It *is* important to
some of us what it's called, and we had a good compromise to deal with
that.
> > Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the
> > bargain, it's broken down.
>
> Uh, dude, you're the one trying to ensure Debian doesn't distribute
> non-free at all. You wanna talk about broken bargains, go ahead.
My point is that the compromise has broken down. You have given up
the careful labelling that the SC calls for, and said that it's
dubious and pointless and so forth. You have *already* broken the
social contract. The GR doesn't seek to break it at all, but rather
to change it.
If you aren't willing to abide by the existing compromise, then we
need to negotiate a new one.
Reply to: