Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian > GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why > would he have any different desire for a set of GNU packages delivered to > a non-Linux platform?
Because that particular non-Linux platform is not a free software platform. > We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed > on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages > installable on M$? We, and the FSF, do not object to the use of GNU software on other platforms. But that doesn't make it a GNU system. > This is just as much a Debian project as debhelp, apt-get, and other > utility projects. How is this different from them, asside from the obvious > fact that it is intended to run on a proprietary OS? Because it means for the first time that some Debian users will not get or have hope of getting a free operating system. Do we want that? I certainly don't. > So, where is the license for the arm, sparc, alpha, or for that matter the > i386 port? These are all Debian projects that are supported to one degree > or another by actual Debian developers who do the work. To argue that this > port is somehow different for it's target OS non-freeness is just silly. Really? Isn't Debian all about free software? Now you're saying that it's silly for freeness to matter about something! > Trying to argue that there is some legal, or moral reason this port should > not be made is not reasonable in my oppinion. Suggesting that it isn't > part of the Debian project is ... contradictory at least. Really? There certainly is a moral reason: we, the Debian Project, stand for free software. Making non-free operating systems easier to use is something you may want to do, but as a moral matter, I (and many others) object to the use of Debian resources to support non-free systems. Thomas
