On 8 Mar 2004, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > 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."
Actually, I belive it was alot more slanted in the other direction - but that is something that would very hard to tell now. I've always felt the compromise was more like this: "The Debian project creates and distributes a quality Linux distribution. A subset of the work of the project is called 'The Debian Linux Distribution' which contains 100% free software." Anyhow, the thing that makes me sad every time this discussion has come up is the incredibly literal reading of the SC. I don't think the document was developed to withstand intense scrutiny. Franky, I've always felt the SC was ment to prevent Debian from substantially changing from the way it was when the SC was written. So, using an oddly written passage of the SC as justification that the project's behavior for the past ~10 years is wrong doesn't seem right to me. > Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the > bargain, it's broken down. I am unaware of any official literature from the project that fails to correctly use the terminology. We've worked hard to maintain the purity of main. The 100% free subset continues to exist, so I don't think it is fair to say the compromise isn't kept up. Jason
