Bug#681419: Alternative dependencies on non-free packages in main: counterargument
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Ian> And from a practical point of view, I would prefer to make a
Ian> choice that significantly eases collaboration with the GNU
Ian> Project to one that slightly eases collaboration with
Ian> proprietary software vendors.
The more interesting question to me is what makes things easier for our
I think that one of the key differences we've hadwith the GNU project
actually is very close to this point.
Last time I looked at why the GNU project didn't recommend Debian, a lot
of it came down to things like our installer offers to turn on the
non-free section and that our documentation talks about using debian
with proprietary software.
Traditionally, we've enabled our users when they choose to use
proprietary software. We've taken the position that Debian will remain
free, but if we can do so while writing free software, we will enable
our users to do whatever they want even if their principles and goals
are different than ours.
So, when evaluating something like this, I agree with Ian that making
things easier for proprietary software vendors is not a concern.
However, making things easier for our users, even when they choose to
use proprietary software is a significant concern.
Advertizing proprietary software seems bad. Accurately documenting what
proprietary software can satisfy the needs of some program in metadata
seems like it helps our users.