> > > Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to > > > the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite > > > whatever claims people will make. > > Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...] > [...] > Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But Debian > as a whole is not, and not even Debian GNU/Linux as a whole. > Since non-free is part of the Debian project.
As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and your non-standard definition is the only way to truth. The only part that is inventing definitions is the Debian project and its developers. If the GNU project would have had non-free software on their FTP site, people would grab their pitch forks. The same should hold for Debian any other project. > > But Debian does not promise those will be free, but that it > > will create a 100% free operating system, which it really > > tries. > > I'd like to know what `free' means in your vocubalary. You have > switched between `free software' and `free', it seems to me that > they are the say for you. With free in this context I mean the (of course somewhat fuzzy) meaning of "free in the sense of free software". Care to unfuzz it a bit? Are you saying that all digital content should be free to be modified? > We all make them, Debian on the other hand _explicitly_ allows > non-free software in its distribution (that you, and other Debian > developer, simply try to redefine what constitues the system just > to justify the inclusion of non-free software is far worse than > by error including non-free software). Debian ships an operating system, which is supposed to be 100% free, Once again, what is `free' here? and does so quite good, with of course the obvious errors and problems, like sometime slipping some non-free program here or there, or like in the current case some large amount of non-free documentation). What non-free documentation is this? All documents licensed under the GFDL are free documents. If you think it is bad to aim at a 100% free operating system (and reaching it quite well) and offering additional support so that even people not able to live in a purist world can have to advantages of free-software, I can do nothing against that. I can only repeat that my priorities are to help people, especialy by enabling them to use free software. I never, ever, claimed that it was a bad thing to aim at a 100% free software system (once again, I have no idea of what you mean by "free", so lets stick to something we can define). Debian on the other hand, does _not_ aim for such a system; it claims to, but it has on a continued basis for more then 10 years distributed non-free software, promoted its usage, and more or less said that it is OK to use non-free software. None of this is OK by a long shot. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion