On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 01:16:44PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > I think this thread clearly demonstrates that there are some people in Debian > who don’t care and aren’t attempting to make year-on-year improvements.
Sorry, but this is not correct. It is more a disconnect between your idea of improvements and the rest of the project, as provided in a GR. > However, I do not think that everyone who has concerns about this particular > pure blend naming issue fit into this category. Wow, just wow. But as you already told us that you are fluid in violating the Debian trademark, not sure if we should be surprised. (I think it was you that asked if a blend could contain software not in Debian, wasn't it?) So to sum this up: I would say it would be not appropriate to use the Debian name in such a project as envisioned by you. > But, in general, I think promoting fully free hardware and firmware is not as > high on the list of priorities of the majority of the Debian community as I > wish it were. I did not see you promoting free hardware? Could you share with us what free hardware we can actually get our hands on, with links to the VHDL/Verilog sources? I played with a free (MIT licensed I think) implementation of RISCV32 some time ago. It's nice to learn about things, but useless in practice. In the end it runs on top of an FPGA, which in it self is a non-free hardware device, as I don't have the means of producing silicon. > Ultimately, I consider it inconsistent to be a strong proponent of software > freedom, but not a strong proponent of hardware and firmware freedom. We can't fight every battle. Debian is a software project, always has been. We don't produce hardware, we simply can not do that. And we can both promote free hardware, which does not exist in practice, and at the same cater to all hardware types. Bastian -- But Captain -- the engines can't take this much longer!
