On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:40:59 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> David Paleino
gmail.com> wrote:>> "Thus, although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
>> users and provide infrastructure for non-free packages [..]."
>>
>> (I'm not a native speaker, that might be better worded)
>
> How about "... we provide support infrastructure for non-free packages
> [..]."?
That's better :)
>> Would that be clearer?
I was one of the GnuHerds developers at the time, and have had also private
mails with RMS... and that's the best mail I found in my inbox :)
> If anyone wants to try to deal with these cans of worms positively,
> I'll support them, but I'm not leading the charge because it doesn't
> bother me as much, as long as debian is 100%% free software.
I'm not a DD (yet -- still in NM), so I can't help that much here.
What does it take to change the wording of the Social Contract? A bug filed to
"general"?
Kindly,
David
--
. ''`. Debian maintainer |
http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|--
http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|----
http://snipr.com/qa_page
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG
v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjOofYACgkQ5qqQFxOSsXRt7QCcCOcS7MrjpP8L4xC4MgsacLkt
Bx0An2OU6E6v2Ifd0NGuxh+v64MHKXq2
=cnFV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
