I forgot to sign my original second to this proposal. Seconded Regards, Steve John Goerzen wrote: > Good evening, > > This is a formal call for sponsers for the below proposed Debian > General Resolution in accordance with section 4.2 of the Debian > Constitution. > > ------ > Debian General Resolution > > Resolved: > > A. That the Debian Social Contract with the Free Software Community be > amended as follows: > > 1. That mentions of non-free be stricken from Section 5, and text be > inserted, the remainder to read: "We acknowledge that some of our > users require the use of programs that don't conform to the Debian > Free Software Guidelines. Our contrib area may help with this > software." > > 2. That Section 1 be amended such that the final sentence reads: "We > will support our users who develop and run non-free software on > Debian, but we will neither make the system depend upon nor distribute > an item of non-free software. Debian may continue to distribute > non-free software previously distributed via its FTP site prior to the > woody distribution." > > B. That the non-free section be removed from woody on all Debian > archives, and that all packages so placed there in accordance with the > definition in Policy section 2.1.4 be removed from the Distribution. > The introduction into Debian of any package meeting the non-free > definition in Policy section 2.1.4, or failing the Debian Free > Software Guidelines, shall be permanently banned. > > C. That the maintainer of the Debian Policy Manual, or an appointee of > the Debian Project Leader, be directed to update that manual > respective of the changes to the Project and general Project policy > detailed in sections A and B above. > > D. That the maintainers of the Debian Archive and website, or an > appointee of the Debian Project Leader, be directed to implement the > changes to the Debian Archive and website to reflect the changes to > Debian enacted by the foregoing clauses in this Resolution. > > -------- end of Resolution -------- > > Rationale: > > Any one of the following should at least justify the examination of > the issue. > > 1. Non-free software is no longer an essential or standard part of a > typical installation. > > Whereas at one time, most everyone used non-free software such as > Netscape for web browsing, acroread for PDF reading, or xv for graphic > viewing, there are quality free replacements for all of these > programs. Therefore, the rationale of "we need non-free for usable > standard system" no longer applies. > > There has been some discussion about whether mozilla is ready for > prime time right now. The point can be argued. However, let me put > forth the following observations: 1) it will almost certainly be ready > by the time woody is released (in about 2 years, of the potato time is > any guide); and 2) using one program to justify the continued support > of all current non-free programs is a weak argument at best. > > 2. Supporting non-free software gives nothing back to the Free > Software community. > > The contract is supposed to be one between us and the Free Software > community. Supporting a non-free section in no way supports Free > Software or its community. > > 3. Supporting non-free software gives nothing to Debian. > > At one time, one may have argued that we needed to support a non-free > section in order to have a complete and coherent system. As discussed > in #1, this requirement does not today exist. > > 4. This clause was never debated when the Social Contract was created. > > At least I cannot find evidence of much discussion on it in the > sketchy archives of e-mail at that time that exist today. It appears > that Bruce put it in out of his own occord and nobody cared to discuss > the point. Probably because at the time, it was just assumed that > this clause was necessary because of the state of affairs back then. > Today, with the benefit of the "20/20 hindsight", we can look back and > say that promising to support non-free indefinately was short-sighted > and probably ill-advised -- although we could not see it at the time. > I maintain that neither Project inertia, nor previous > short-sightedness, nor tradition, nor complacency are valid reasons > for continuing this obsolete policy. > > 5. The existance of the non-free section is being used as a cop-out by > those that seek to peddle non-free wares. > > That the continued existance of this section lends credibitility and a > distribution channel to those that would seek to undermine our Free > Software distribution, or to act as leeches upon it, is a shortcoming > in our current policy. > > 6. Most importantly: it's the right thing to do, morally. > > 'Nuff said. > > -- > John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> www.complete.org > Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com > #include <std_disclaimer.h> <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org >
Attachment:
pgpfg2GWyohxU.pgp
Description: PGP signature