Bryan Baldwin <[email protected]> writes: > I understand that Debian has a fully functional fully free subset of > the system.
The fully functional, fully-free system is identical with Debian. This is because that is the *definition* of Debian, as defined by the Debian project in their founding documents. Those founding documents also state the existence of ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’, which are outside Debian. Again, this is all in the founding documents published online; you don't need to ask Debian representatives to get this. > I admire that Debian developers have gone to the effort required to > make it functionally separate. I do not admire the lack of ownership > over contrib/nonfree. The Debian project has ownership of the ‘contrib’ and ‘non-free’ sections of the archive. Those sections are not part of Debian, as defined by the Debian project. Clearly there is confusion over this, which is why we're having these discussions. But if you're saying that the Debian project's definition of Debian will be rejected as “lack of ownership” over the parts that are outside Debian, I don't see how constructive discussion can emerge. > Having contrib and nonfree repositories is bad, but its not nearly as > bad as refusing ownership over it and obfuscating its existence with > purely tautological language. Can we now lay this allegation to rest? Who from the Debian project has refused ownership? Those sections, which are by definition outside Debian, are owned by the Debian project as stated in their founding documents. -- \ “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is | `\ obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't.” —Mark Twain, | _o__) _Following the Equator_ | Ben Finney
pgp0NMxcRY9Y5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
