[Top][All Lists]
[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/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [semi-OffTopic] UserLinux, (continued)
[Gnu-arch-users] [semi-OffTopic] UserLinux, Tom Lord, 2003/12/18