On Wed, Jun 07, 2000 at 02:13:14AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Indeed, it cnsider this resolution as breaking the social
> contract, and using a general resolution to weasel out of a contract
> makes it no better.
This was bothering me a little too.
A more ...moral... way of changing a contract might be to let both parties
to the agreement get some say in whether the change takes place. In
this case, the agreement is between Debian, embodied by the developers,
and both the free software community in general, and Debian's users
in particular.
Having one party able to decide "Oh, no, we didn't really mean that part
of the contract" and scratch it out without the other party having any
say whatsoever just doesn't seem Right. It makes some sense here, and I
suspect that it would even be a perfectly legal and above board thing
to do in this case under US law (hear-say), but... It still doesn't
seem proper.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.
``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
-- Dave Clark
Attachment:
pgprxBBtBdzbT.pgp
Description: PGP signature