Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:46:33AM +0100, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 05:06:25PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > perhaps you misunderstood my question:
> > hint: a bunch of unrunable code, as there is nothing running, except
> > maybe the BIOS bit that is looking for a bootloader, or perhaps a very
> > unhappy bootloader that can find no kernel.
> The out the userland code, and how happy system does one get?
something just as unrunable.
my point is that if i had a totaly free debian gnu/w32 system, i'd have
a bunch of usless code.
if i had a totaly free debian gnu/soalris, or debian gnu/aix or debian
gnu/hpux, or (ad infinitum) i'd have a bunch of usless code.
because that kernel is non-free.
debian is a free os. without a free kernel to complement the free
userland tools, you have nothing. so debian gnu/w32 would be a non-free
os, since the kernel (a very important piece) is non-free.
so debian gnu/(w32|solaris|sunos|aix|hpux|irix|ad infinitum) is a nonesuch.
> actually could change kernel between /vmlinuz and /bsd and run the same
and bsd is a free kernel, so we could havd debian gnu/bsd, and have a
free os. wouldn't that be fun?
note: my use of debian gnu/[kernel] does not mean that these are
official, nor suggested, names, or anything of the sort. since debian
gnu/hurd would never exist :) i hope you understand what i mean, and i
don't need to try to explain myself any further. my point is this: with
a non-free kernel, you are forced into having a non-free os, and that is
not what debian is about.
if it ain't free, it ain't debian.