> 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.
I wish Debian and the FSF would work together to resolve this issue. It shouldn't be that hard to modify Debian so that `non-free` is only ever used based on an explicit user request (and to let the user specify that this explicit request only applies this one time). Along the same lines, the `non-free` section should be split in two: `proprietary`, `non-dfsg`, where the `non-dfsg` part would only contain packages which the DFSG rejects as non-free but which many people in the Free Software world consider Free nevertheless (basically FSF's docs). Stefan _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk