Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]
Dale Scheetz <email@example.com> writes:
> RMS approached Debian nearly insisting that the distro be called Debian
> GNU/Linux because of the large component of GNU sofware in the distro. Why
> would he have any different desire for a set of GNU packages delivered to
> a non-Linux platform?
Because that particular non-Linux platform is not a free software
> We make no restriction that Debian GNU/Linux packages can not be installed
> on a Sun OS, do we? Why should we have anything to say about packages
> installable on M$?
We, and the FSF, do not object to the use of GNU software on other
platforms. But that doesn't make it a GNU system.
> This is just as much a Debian project as debhelp, apt-get, and other
> utility projects. How is this different from them, asside from the obvious
> fact that it is intended to run on a proprietary OS?
Because it means for the first time that some Debian users will not
get or have hope of getting a free operating system. Do we want that?
I certainly don't.
> So, where is the license for the arm, sparc, alpha, or for that matter the
> i386 port? These are all Debian projects that are supported to one degree
> or another by actual Debian developers who do the work. To argue that this
> port is somehow different for it's target OS non-freeness is just silly.
Really? Isn't Debian all about free software? Now you're saying that
it's silly for freeness to matter about something!
> Trying to argue that there is some legal, or moral reason this port should
> not be made is not reasonable in my oppinion. Suggesting that it isn't
> part of the Debian project is ... contradictory at least.
Really? There certainly is a moral reason: we, the Debian Project,
stand for free software. Making non-free operating systems easier to
use is something you may want to do, but as a moral matter, I (and
many others) object to the use of Debian resources to support non-free