Re: General Resolution: Removing non-free
Adam McKenna <email@example.com> writes:
> Trust me, I know that non-free is not "officially" part of the distribution.
> I was responding to John's semantic argument with a semantic argument of my
> own. Claiming "there will be no change in the distribution" is deceptive,
> because while it's technically correct, it's really not true. The proposal
> specifically eliminates the "distribution" of the non-free packages.
When the free software community was originally disturbed that Debian
was going to be distributing non-free software, we were told it was
OK; it wouldn't be part of Debian, it would just be distributed for
the convenience of users.
Now it turns out that the non-free advocates regard this as a merely
semantic distinction of no importance, and that makes me think the
compromise was flawed from the beginning.