Re: "keep non-free" proposal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2004 at 11:26:17AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > > Maybe i am stupid or something. Please spell the exact nature of the
> > > compromise out for me again, and tell me how i am violating it.
> > The compromise was: "non-free can be on the FTP site, as long as
> > everybody knows and agrees that it's not part of Debian".
>
> See, there you go again. It's not part of the Debian distribution;
> but it's certainly part of the Debian project. Saying categorically and
> without clarification that non-free isn't part of "Debian" is exactly
> as bad as saying it is part of "Debian".
But the Social Contract says it's not part of Debian. Right there, in
those words. "Non-free software isn't a part of Debian." Now, if you
want to repeal the relevant paragraph of the SC, I understand there is
a GR pending which you could vote for.
Indeed, this is just what the SC says: non-free isn't a part of
Debian, but we do provide infrastructure for it. This says to me,
that it isn't part of the Debian Project; it's just some other thing
that we make allowance for. Works for me, but if you don't like this
language, you have to change it by GR, and not insist that it really
doesn't matter.
Thomas
Reply to: