Hi, On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 03:46:12PM +0200, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote: > Hi! > > Am 03.09.2012 15:14, schrieb Osamu Aoki: > > > If the bug reporter wishes to kill everything about non-free from Debian > > related documents and archive area, I can tell him to go to the source > > :-) "Debian policy" (Sure this is in our "main" area which is the real > > Debian system) > > > > 2.2.3 The non-free archive area > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-non-free > > > > If the bug reporter can convince Debian folks in debian-project to agree > > to remove these writings on non-free in our policy and make Debian not > > to have non-free area, I will reconsider this bug report. > [..] > > Policy is the wrong point to start removing policy. non-free (and > contrib FWIW) are written down in social contract §5, so we would need > to change that first.
Darn ... you are right. After initial rejection feeling, I have a bit constructive message. This bug report should have been filed as wishlist bug if FSF is seeking to make a derivative work called trisquel while working with Debian. Calling to change Debian itself at fundamental points such as social contract §5 is not practical at this point. For example, if package build environment has pre-defined and agreed environment variable such as: DERIVATIVE=(undefined) # debian build DERIVATIVE=debian # debian build DERIVATIVE=ubuntu # ubuntu build DERIVATIVE=trisquel # trisquel build Then I can accept patch to skip including some parts of document for trisquel build. Even Debian policy document can emmbed such change as long as document title changed to "trisquel policy" at the same time. I think this is acceptable wishlist bug to my package. Of course, I like to get patch for it :-) (Nah.... I can do it as long as technical scheme is worked out.) Regards, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
