On Sun, May 23, 2004 at 05:19:40PM +0200, Tore Anderson wrote:
> This is what I don't follow. I've been trying very hard to understand
> how it was logically possible to interpret the old social contract like
> that, with no luck.
> To be able to make the distinction, one would also have to forget about
> the mathematical fact that "100%" refer to the whole thing, alternatively
> concede that we have always violated the social contract by distributing
> "copyrighted works distributable in digital form" (which are not
> The social contract never read "Debian Will Remain 80% Free Software and
> 20% Copyrighted Works Distributable In Digital Form (Which Are Not
> Software)", nor "100% Of The Software In Debian Will Remain Free". As I
> read the old SC, and I can see no other way, it would have had to instead
> read something like one of my above examples for Mr. Towns' interpretation
> to be logically possible.
> For Debian to be "100% Free Software", it first must be "100% Software",
it means that the SOFTWARE in debian is ALL (i.e. 100%) free software as
defined by the DFSG. it says nothing about the non-software in debian.
> I'm entirely willing to be educated where I'm wrong.
that would be nice. i suspect, though, that it'll be far easier to pretend
that you can't understand a simple and obvious concept than it is to
acknowledge another point of view.
> I always assumed that there were no ambiguity, and that the Sarge RC
> policy deliberately violated the social contract on a few select issues,
craig sanders <firstname.lastname@example.org>
The next time you vote, remember that "Regime change begins at home"
- Re: DFSG#10
- From: Branden Robinson <email@example.com>