Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware

[Philippe Cerfon <philcerf@gmail.com>]

And btw:
Even if Debian doesn't want to do the non-open thing now or perhaps
generally doesn't want to allow people to opt-out of closed source
software while keeping other non-free software, then the name
non-free-firmware seems to break the current naming, doesn't it?
main
contrib
non-free

These all give the "license status" of their packages.
But non-free-firmware, would give license status and package type.


Oh and since this has been brought up by someone.
It seems better if packages wouldn't be in multiple suites.
That's also what I'd have intended with non-open, in other words, a
package that is in non-open is only there and not also in e.g.
non-open/firmware (and vice versa).

Thanks and regards,
Philippe