On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:18:30AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 02:18:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Well, no. If the issue was resolving confusion, we could just say "main
> > is 100% DFSG-free software; non-free isn't; both are part of the project;
> > we distribute both" and rewrite any confusing or misleading claims we
> > make elsewhere.
> I don't think it's a problem with wording or anything. We could write
> NON-FREE IS NOT PART OF DEBIAN with <blink> tags on www.debian.org, and
> some people would still think it is when they come across
> /debian/pool/non-free.
Yes, that's because "NON-FREE IS NOT PART OF DEBIAN" is a confusing and
misleading claim, when Debian as a project distributes non-free software.
"non-free is not a part of Debian's main distribution" on the otherhand
isn't.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature