On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On the other hand that state went on for years and we should be able >> to form our own opinion about freeness and how to abide to our >> commitment to users and free software. > > We have formed our own opinion. Repeatedly, over many years and many > votes. We can certainly have another vote if there is the desire to do > so. But implying that we have not formed our own opinion up to now is > IMHO just wrong.
I think the key distinction this time around is that the outcome would be a fairly narrow exception, which would allow for both "pure" and "non-pure" official media. Is a vote truly necessary? The Social Contract seems to be sufficiently flexible already: SC#1 says, "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component." The availability of a "non-pure" image does not impose any requirement for it to be used. It simply becomes one more choice that a user can make. That is more freedom, not less IMHO. SC#5 says, "We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive for these works." These images could simply be considered as part of the non-free archive. Best wishes, Mike
