On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:26:08PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > What about '*the* Debian Distribution'? Would you consider non-free as > being part of that? (As opposed to 'Debian's main distribution')
In the context of the social contract, it clearly isn't: it's defined as 100% free software that doesn't depend on any piece of non free software; contrib and non-free as defined in the social contract obviously don't meet that criteria, so aren't a part of it. I think that's a fairly obscure and pedantic sort of reading though, and it obviously causes needless argument and confusion, though. I don't think it's useful to talk about "the Debian distribution" in a way that doesn't apply both to just main, and to main+contrib+non-free+non-US. I wouldn't make statements like "the Debian distribution includes non-free software" or "the Debian distribution doesn't include any non-free software"; I'd qualify them instead like "Debian includes non-free software in it's "non-free" component". 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
