[Fsf-Debian] No response?

Jason Self jason at bluehome.net
Fri Aug 3 16:13:05 UTC 2012

Daniel Kahn Gillmor said:
> Debian Social Contract

I'm reminded of what Stefano Zacchiroli said when he started this, that Debian
already asserts a clear separation already.

I also think of what the FSF has published [2], that it's "not thoroughly
separated" to them.

> two sets of infrastructure maintained

I wonder if it needs to go that far? Apache has supported virtual hosts for a
long time.

Is there an opportunity to make the separation between what "is" and "is not"
Debian even clearer, and to do it in a way that remains consistent with Debian's
social contract?

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/07/msg00016.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html#Debian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/attachments/20120803/d9e06cd6/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list