On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:18:30AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Well, no. If the issue was resolving confusion, we could just say "main > > is 100% DFSG-free software; non-free isn't; both are part of the project; > > we distribute both" and rewrite any confusing or misleading claims we > > make elsewhere. > I don't think it's a problem with wording or anything. We could write > NON-FREE IS NOT PART OF DEBIAN with <blink> tags on www.debian.org, and > some people would still think it is when they come across > /debian/pool/non-free.
Yes, that's because "NON-FREE IS NOT PART OF DEBIAN" is a confusing and misleading claim, when Debian as a project distributes non-free software. "non-free is not a part of Debian's main distribution" on the otherhand isn't. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
