gnu-arch-users
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [semi-OffTopic] UserLinux


From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [semi-OffTopic] UserLinux
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:59:23 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

[Wandering further into the hinterlands of speculation...]

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:49:55PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
> 
>     > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 10:36:29AM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > > The Debian process, by definition -- by the social contract, can not
>     > > implement that feedback.  Debian has pledged to treat all users
>     > > equally -- not to give special attention to the customers of Bruce's
>     > > service companies.
> 
>     > That's not actually correct.
>     > http://people.debian.org/~asuffield/wrong/users_over_developers.html
>     > addresses this, albeit not as the main point.
> 
>     > However, it still isn't going to happen. It just isn't prohibited by
>     > the social contract.
> 
> So, I acknowledge your taking exception the phrase "pledged to treat
> all users equally" -- your users_over_developers.html takes an
> interesting and agreeable but narrow perspective on that. (You argue
> about users-in-general vs users-who-are-developers -- those arguments
> do not speak to commercial use of the Debian process.)

Yeah, it's not written in response to this point directly. It covers
the relevant part though - the social contract doesn't comment on this
issue. [Aside: note that that page does not say anything about "could"
or "should", it deals only in what is currently true].

> I'm also looking at articles 3 and 6 of the certificate of
> incorporation of SPI, within which context I think the contract must
> be read.

SPI came later and has no control over Debian. It is a holding
corporation (ie, it holds assets in trust for Debian, which has no
legally recognised existence of its own); Debian operates
independently.

> Being the project of a 501 (c)(3) corporation,

[Ergo, this doesn't hold]

However, it's probably true that the assets held by SPI couldn't be
used to further such goals. A non-501(c)(3) holding corporation would
probably be required.

[Not that anything like that is actually going to happen.]

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]