On Tue, 7 Aug 2012, 00:39:54 EST, Paul van der Vlis <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Op 06-08-12 02:12, Bryan Baldwin schreef:
> > be that if Debian met all my points it might still not be considered
> > free by nature of how well integrated contrib and nonfree are. This
> > isn't a problem for free distributions that have never maintained any
> > nonfree software.
>
> Not sure. E.g. Trisquel could create a "trisquel-nonfree.org" what would
> make it very easy for people to install closed source software.
A repository done by the project but not the distro?
I feel this falls under the name confusion bit if the free distro guidelines.
If it doesnt perhaps that section will need some wording clarification.
> > On 08/06/2012 01:04 AM, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
> > Debian is not simply choosing to have nonfree software for personal
> > use, they are publicly distributing nonfree software. I'm not saying
> > they should be stopped if that's what they want to do. I'm saying that
> > no one who says its free should be taken seriously. Its intellectually
> > insulting when something insists that I am confused when I don't.
>
> I agree with you here. In my opinion Debian should not distribute
> nonfree software. But I don't have problems when Debian would work
> together with people or an organization who does, e.g. by giving access
> to a build farm.
With my hardline hat on id suggest that debian -devs- should be abled to work
with that org, not debian distro or project.
Compomising hat isnt fussed ;)
thanks,
kk
_______________________________________________
Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/fsf-collab-discuss
