[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization

From: Mark Wielaard
Subject: Re: Turning GNU into a bottom-up organization
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 12:20:11 +0200

On Thu, 2019-10-24 at 22:50 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Alfred M. Szmidt, le jeu. 24 oct. 2019 16:31:41 -0400, a ecrit:
> > We don't promote non-free software, we don't host non-free software,
> > so clearly things have worked for 30 years where they have not for
> > Debian.
> The goals were different. In the Debian case it was written in the
> social contract right from its writing in 1997 that it provides
> infrastructure for non-free packages. So you can't say "things didn't
> work" for Debian: it worked the way it was written in the social
> contract. The main archive of Debian does not contain non-free software,
> only mentions to it (which is what the social contract allows).
> > And the reason for that is the strong stance against non-free
> > software, and dedication from RMS on the subject.
> And a social contract can provide this as well.
> Stubbornness can also, but it is also detrimental for other parts of the
> GNU project.

Right. I think what is being objected to is a GNU Social Contract that
would contain something like this part of the Debian Social Contract

   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).

And I would absolutely agree. That is definitely not something that
would be acceptable for the GNU Social Contract.



reply via email to

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