Quoting Kurt Roeckx (2022-09-03 20:28:35) > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > > As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make > > Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today. That > > makes me sad. My preference for an outcome would be along the following > > lines. > > > > ================== > > > > We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1 > > which says: > > > > Debian will remain 100% free > > > > We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is > > "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software > > Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components > > will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people > > who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will > > never make the system require the use of a non-free component. > > > > Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the > > main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will > > not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default. > > I can interprete that as having non-free available and installed by default > is acceptable, as long as there is a way not to use the non-free part. > > > We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5 > > which says: > > > > Works that do not meet our free software standards > > > > We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that > > do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have > > created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these > > works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system, > > although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage > > CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas > > and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus, > > although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their > > use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug > > tracking system and mailing lists). > > > > Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with > > non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we > > support their use and welcome others to distribute such work. > > As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would > really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and > that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean. > > I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are > you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official > because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read > in that text.
I think the key to understanding that paragraph is an implied assumption that some installer *is* considered part of the Debian system - i.e. "a system of installer and installable packages" (which is different from "an operating system resulting from executing an installer"). I worry that the multiple meanings of "system" in ballot texts will lead to confusion/frustration over how to vote and how to interpret the result of the vote. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
