Agreed. Maybe it helps to summarize the options, my take is:
Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing and sometimes
enabling non-free firmware -- there is no more free installer
Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one
Proposal C allows presenting free and non-free installers equally visible.
Proposal D is NOTA thus permit publishing a non-free installer like
today, reinforcing that interpretation of the social contract
Proposal E is proposal A plus change to social contract to permit it/Simon Paul Wise <p...@debian.org> writes: > On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > >> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer? >> tl;dr: No >> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in >> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.ca...@debian.org >> tl;dr: No > ... >> Linking to the non-free installer from the Debian front page seems >> acceptable (or at least not in direct conflict with the social >> contract), but depending on how it is executed may be poor judgement and >> would give a strange impression of what Debian is about. > ... >> So with all these words, my belief is that publications of non-free >> installers are already acceptable under the social contract as long as >> they don't claim to be part of the Debian system, and that it isn't the >> case that the non-free installer is the only installer available. > > Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates, > except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
