Re: Going ahead with non-free-firmware
On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 10:36:53PM +0100, Philippe Cerfon wrote:
> 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).
Maybe closed-source would be clearer than non-open.
-- hendrik
Reply to: