"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes: > I do think some parts are important to include though, how about: I disagree strongly on this. We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're making to our users, and then stop. Specifically, we should avoid including text that attempts to tell them what they need to do, such as: > We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages > to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether > they can distribute it on their media or products. If you really think we need to say this to downstream consumers / distributors of our work, I'm sure we can find a way to do that. But the Social Contract is the wrong place. It is, and must remain, an articulation of our values and the associated commitments we're making to our users. The fewer words it must contain to achieve those objectives, the better. > An added goal I'm trying to achieve with this change is to explain some > practical consequences of redistributing non-free software. I applaud and support this goal... but please don't burden our fundamental statement of core values with such content. Bdale
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature