> On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:47:46PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > > Anyways, freedom is a very broad issue, but the freedoms Debian is > > concerned about are rather specific kinds of freedom (especially those > > that allow us to distribute debian on multiple platforms, and those that > > allow us to fix bugs and security problems).
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:08:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > ... and that allow users to make whatever modifications they want (even > those that have nothing to do with bugs or security), and to redistribute > those modifications without onerous restrictions. Sure, because in the general case, whether something is a bug or not depends on what people want. For that matter, whether or not someone is a part of Debian, or not, also depends on what people want. Most major corporations are a part of Debian, in some sense or another -- the free software community which Debian is a part of (and depends on) is extremely extensive. > Your "especially" is true in that it's what Debian needs to exist as > a Linux distribution (this applies to all distributions, regardless > of social contracts), but the SC places equal importance on guaranteeing > users freedoms beyond bugfixing--so I disagree with "especially". But there are some freedoms which Debian (or at least the Social Contract) doesn't express any particular views on. For example: the freedom to carry weapons. I'm thinking your objection is basically centered around the issue of "what is Debian" (or "what Debian isn't"). I agree that I was tacitly assuming that I was writing for people who knew what debian is (a volunteer free-software group which helps coordinate -- and relies heavily on -- support from people who are not explicitly members of the group). Thanks, -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]