On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 02:42:15PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > Raul. This is a very different proposal that the ones that were > discussed in the past, and one that merely keeps non-free, without > putting any more compulsive engagement to work on making every single > piece of non-free software obsolet.
I've gone through what seems like several dozen proposals, so there are going to be differences. > Could you provide some rationale as to why you choose to modify your > previous proposals until this point, and what does this really win us > over the status quo ? The fundamental rationale is described in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200401/msg01835.html However, I received some criticism -- perhaps valid -- that "the Debian system" was itself too ambiguous to stand by itself. Also, since I needed an extra sentence to associate that with main, it seemed simpler to just use "Debian Main" as the noun phrase. If the social contract is guarantees about main (which is what we've always taken it to be), then the psuedo-conflict in the social contract which keeps giving rise to the "drop non-free" discussions goes away. At least from my point of view -- do you see anything remaining in the social contract which would support the idea that there's some conflict between my proposed social contract and non-free? Now, granted, there might be other rationales for dropping non-free. However, my belief is that without support from the social contract people won't consider those rationales so self-evident that they could get away with proposing we change the social contract without also stating their rationale. Do you have any other questions? Thanks, -- Raul P.S. my regular email account has been unable to send email since yesterday at noon. At the moment, I can only email from home, so I'm not likely to be able to post again till late tonight or tomorrow, depending on how things work out.
