> > Are you familiar with the concept of an "ambiguous phrase"?
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 01:46:58PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sure, but the Social Contract wasn't designed to place non-free into > an ambiguous relationship with Debian, but to spell out exactly what > the relationship is. As I read it, it's clear: we will put non-free > on our servers and support it a little, but it's not Debian. It's not > a little Debian, it's not Debian-like, it's explicitly stated to be > not Debian. That's one viable interpretation. It's also a fairly popular interpretation. It's certainly not the only viable interpretation. > There is no text of the social contract which applies the word Debian > to non-free under any description at all, but rather, serves to > mention both only to make as clear as possible that non-free is not > part of Debian, using those very words. I guess that's true if you don't think that we are Debian. If we are Debian, then the use of terms such as "we" or "our" used when describing our relationship to non-free fit that description. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
