On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:15:40AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 08:58:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > I would prefer it if you would strike references to "non-free" in the > > > above > > > and replace them with the term "sourceless", to keep the scope the same as > > > Well, the DFSG clearly state that programs need to have sources to be free. > > so > > i don't really see why you are afraid to use the right word for it ? > > It is not the "right" word for it, it is a *different* word, which changes > the scope of the resolution. The GR I've proposed does not excuse non-free > firmware in general, it only states that sourceless firmware is permitted.
sourceless firmwares are non-free. By calling them sourceless instead of non-free, you kind of excuse keeping them in main, and kind of implies that even if they are lacking source, they still are DFSG free, which is a clear contradiction with both our principles, common sense, and what debian has stood for all those years and confirmed in the pre-sarge GRs. > Whether you consider sourceless firmware to be non-free or not, changing > "sourceless" to "non-free" is a change of scope. Indeed, you pass from word nit-picking and duisguising the truth to saying things squarely as they are. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
