On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:35:19PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 03:12:07PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > 3. Debian does not go quite as far as Stallman would go in such areas as > > removing drivers and binary blobs from the kernel, removing trademarked > > images, and some similar issues. (Amusingly, Debian also goes much > > farther than Stallman would go in ensuring that all the documentation > > in Debian is free; Stallman and the FSF distribute and maintain > > non-free documentation for some of their free software by Debian's > > definitions.) > > This is a little misleading. Debian holds a different position on what freedom > means in respect to software documentation. To claim that this makes Debian > more free presumes agreement with that position. > > > but I also think it's possible to overstate the effect of minor differences > > and work that's not yet happened and miss the big picture. Debian and the > > FSF, apart from the documentation freeness issue, agree in 99% of the cases. > > Agreed. From my understanding, the reason the FSF/GNU does not recommend > Debian > because doing so would be seen as an implicit endorsement of the non-free > software which is an understandable position to take.
IIRC, the FSF has been not recommending Debian since much before the GFDL debacle. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
