On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:06:49PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:13:05PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > This is an interpretation of the SC, not the DFSG, and a perfectly valid > > position statement. > > That can be seen as an interpretation of SC #4 (our priorities are > our users and free software). But I don't see it offer an > interpretation for SC #1 (Debian will remain 100% free).
Not that it matters anymore now (what with the vote being over and all), but: "remain" is not the same thing as "become". Etch wasn't 100% free; neither was sarge, and with woody we had similar problems. I wasn't around for the potato release, so I can't speak for that one. The point being, this seems like progress toward a goal that Debian be 100% free software. It would be possible to interpret the SC as a description of a utopia to which we want to evolve; one which we've not quite arrived at yet, but where we very much would like to get. For clarity: I'm not saying that any of the above represents my personal opinion. The point is, language isn't math, and as a result the same text will often mean one thing to one person, and something entirely else to another. This is why legalese exists; to remove as much ambiguity as possible from a legal text, those texts are written using formulations that are well-defined in the context, or that do not have a lot of ambiguity to start with. -- <Lo-lan-do> Home is where you have to wash the dishes. -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org