Re: Debian's Linux kernel continues to regress on freedom
On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 15:42 +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> > I guess the Social Contract really is a joke. I don't know why new applicants
> > are supposed to agree to it. Old members apparently violate it at will for years
> > with no consequences.
> > It doesn't make me respect Debian very much.
> I am not a DD (yet), but all my packages were very strictly checked
> for all non-free stuff that I forgot to delete and the Social Contract
> is not a joke at all. This is why I am using Debian.
Good luck climbing to DD :)
> > Developers you have, are better than developers you don't have. The
> > ones you have, make Debian what it is. If reality doesn't match the
> > theory, change the theory, not the reality.
> I disagree - this is one of the reasons I am using Debian, because it
> strictly distinguishes between main and non-free.
> If there are some non-free parts in the kernel, it can go to non-free
> immediatelly, so that users can use it now, but things in main should
> be DFSG free and that's how it should be. As I see it, the non-free
> section is here precisely for those cases, that intuition says the
> packages should be in Debian, nevertheless, they are not DFSG free.
Problem is that there has been non-free content in Linux (eg the kernel)
since before Sarge was released (3 years ago?).
For both Sarge and etch a GR was passed saying "we'll fix it up after
this", and its still not fixed.
Of course... this is my understanding only...