Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > >> Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 08:08:36AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: >>>> Though I agree that the release team cannot put any foundation document >>>> aside, I don't think the release team is overriding the social contract, >>>> but chooses a certain interpretation (that I think is the correct one >>>> btw). Other people obviously prefer a different interpretation, and so >>>> the relevant question is: Whose interpretation is the binding one? >>>> Currently, it seems to me that unless decided otherwise by a GR, the >>>> release team has the final say (as explained by Russ). >>> When you say "chooses a certain interpretation", are you referring to the >>> one in which SC #4 is interpreted in a way that cannot be complied with no >>> matter what, only to use this impossibility as proof that SC #4 and SC #1 >>> contradict each other, and in turn resolving that because the SC is >>> inconsistent, SC #1 is meant to be read "figuratively"? >> I discussed this with Andi in the past, so let me answer: From our point >> of view, SC#4 is relatively clear: Our users need to be able to use a >> stable release of Debian and the free software community (not "free >> software"!) needs us to spread the use of _free_ software. >> Driving off people to another distribution because we have found yet >> another sequence of magic numbers that might, or might not, have source >> code somewhere is a clear violation of SC#4 in our eyes. > > It is your Myopia about ยง5 that is distressing; you seem to > selectively read the SC as it benefits your views. > > ,---- > | 5. Works that do not meet our free software standards > | > | We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that > | do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have > | created `contrib' and `non-free' areas in our archive for these > | works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian > | system, although they have been configured for use with Debian. We > | encourage CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in > | these areas and determine if they can distribute the packages on > | their CDs. Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, > | we support their use and provide infrastructure for non-free > | packages (such as our bug tracking system and mailing lists). > `---- > > > The SC never said that we include things that violate DFSG #2 > ,---- > | 2. Source Code > | > | The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in > | source code as well as compiled form. > `----
Note that firmware is no program AFAICS... > to be in main; it even states that `contrib' and `non-free' > areas in our archive have been designed for that. This selective > reading of the SC is one reason I believe the release team is in > violation of the social contract. Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
