Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
You can install an entirely free system with no non-free components.
You can also install Debian without taking account of any recommends.
But the recommends and suggests fields are still listing nonfree software,
which was the FSF's issue. Not accepting the suggestions or recommendations
doesn't address the issue the FSF raised in Sullivan's DebConf talk.
Where would you suggest that Debian point users with unusable hardware -
note (_users_ not developers) ?
Developers are users too. But where I would point them doesn't matter.
These are the FSF's requirements we're talking about. Although I don't
speak for the FSF, I believe they'd point any computer user to the FSF's
"Respects Your Freedom" hardware (such as what the FSF itself uses) and I
believe they'd point out that sometimes freedom requires a sacrifice (as
rms points out in all of his talks going back many years). One might not be
able to use just any hardware with a Debian GNU/Linux system that satisfies
the FSF's recommended distro list.
Genuinely: run through a Debian install from the netinst / CDs. Please
point out to me where non-free software will be installed without an
explicit action to include nonfree software on the part of the person
installing. The screen mentioning non-free mentions that hardware
drivers that may be required may be non-free but you have to opt in to
Which suggests the nonfree software integration the FSF spoke of is in
there. After all, like you just said, if it's an opt-in away to get the
nonfree software the nonfree repos are listed but not enabled until one
answers "yes" to activate the nonfree repos Debian hosts. If this isn't the
case, and the FSF's requests are being met it's a simple matter for someone
from Debian to submit the latest Debian GNU/Linux for a proper review and
possible inclusion on the list.
arm-netbook mailing list email@example.com
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk