On Wed, Jun 23, 2004 at 02:52:03PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > WV> Who's to say what's "valid" and what isn't? When I originally read (and > WV> agreed with) the SC, there was nobody to tell me that the way I read it > WV> at the time wasn't considered "valid". There was also nobody who pointed > WV> me at the subtle inconsistency in the way I interpreted the original SC. > WV> Sue me, English isn't my native language. > > I don't see much value in quibbling over the actual words in the > original Social Contract. I think the actual meaning we intend for the > current SC is far more important. > > RM> Given historical practice, that's not an unreasonable interpretation. > > Historically, Debian has had numerous ideals. Not a single Debian > release has demonstrated achievement of all those ideals. Now, you can > infer from this that we didn't really have those ideals, and achieved > our real ideals, or you can infer that we compromised our ideals out of > pragmatism or ignorance. Or you can infer something else entirely. > (IANADD) as someone said you can release a 'perfect' distro that is DFSG and SC approved but not up to date or usable by most. How is pragmatically releasing something a compromise. Is the goal to be perfect or to release something in a timely fashion that maximises both its usefulnes/newness and its freeness. -Kev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature