Re: Debian trademark [was: Debian GNU/w32, may ready to be started?]

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Anders Arnholm <anders@arnholm.nu> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 09:20:31AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> > my point is that if i had a totaly free debian gnu/w32 system, i'd have
> > a bunch of usless code.
> 
> Without the non-free bios my kernel is use less so Debian GNU/Linux for
> i386 should be dropped.... Of at least make an own bios with only free
> software! Opps rest of the hardware also has non-free software, remove
> that too! Make the system only run on truly free software and no
> dependency to any non-free software...

Before we had good free kernels, it was appropriate to rely on
non-free kernels to aid the development of free software.  Now that we
have them, it is no longer necessary to do so, and therefore we should
not.  And we should certainly aid those who continue to hoard the
nonfree kernels, now that we have alternatives.

We don't have a good non-free BIOS yet, so it is appropriate for us to
rely on the non-free BIOS just as we once relied on non-free kernels.

> my point is that kernel isn't any different from any other parts of the
> code, bios, init, sh they are all important. Using the maxium ammouth of
> free software is good. If some software has to be non-free untill better
> alternatives arise let it be soo.

So if the maximum amount of free software is 99.99% (excluding the
firmware), why are you suggesting we should settle fore 10%?