<posted & mailed> Thibaut VARENE wrote:
> First, let me try to define what I'm calling "non-software": Stop. Call it "non-programs". Here, when we say "software", we mean "it ain't hardware". <snip> > Now, the whole idea of applying the same "freeness criteria" to what I > call non-software content, looks like a complete nonsense to me, Well, Debian disagrees. There have been two GRs about this issue as well as years of discussion. We have very good reasons for disagreeing; namely, that every valuable freedom for programs has turned out to be a valuable freedom for other works as well. <snip> > 2) We're forgetting section 4 of the SC: "Our priorities are our users > and free software". It seems to me that some of the DDs i've seen > posting lately have turned that into "Our priorities are free > software". <snip> > Well, if we forget our users that way, depriving them of what they need > and want, of facilities others provide them with (documentation is one > of them, I'd go flamish and mention some firmware as well); We provide the "non-free" archive for this purpose; to provide software which some users need and want, but which is not free. There is no excuse for having it in 'main'. > I, as a > user, would probably turn back and find what I need elsewhere than in > Debian. And I'm pretty confident I'm not an "exception", in such a > behaviour as a user. You are an exception if you do not consider the "non-free" archive sufficient for this purpose. <snip> > I do not intend to flame or sound pedantic in here, I just want to make > sure we, as a project, do not forget who we are "working" for, and > what it takes to satisfy our *priorities*. Then educate yourself about the issues first. Read some of the last two years' discussions and summaries thereof. > PS: nothing I've said here is private. Or new. -- There are none so blind as those who will not see.
