On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 11:37:57AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and > > the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the > > people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to > > persue a political goal of 100% free software. > Right, it's a compromise. That's my point, and the problem is that > the compromise is: > "You can distribute non-free packages, as long as you don't call them > part of Debian."
No, the compromise is Debian distributes non-free packages, but it also has a section that's free, and anyone who doesn't like non-free is welcome to ignore everything else. Pretending that Debian's focussed on what things are called rather than what things are certainly seems ignorant historically, and still seems pretty dubious. > The second half of that has been nearly erased, and Anthony and Sven > have said here that it's pointless and pedantic to insist on it. No, I'm claiming that it's actively counterproductive to goals of 100% free software to drop non-free. I might be wrong, of course. > Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the > bargain, it's broken down. Uh, dude, you're the one trying to ensure Debian doesn't distribute non-free at all. You wanna talk about broken bargains, go ahead. 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 could. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
