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

[Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org>]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 08:42:06AM +0100, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> debian is a free os. without the bios to complement the free kernel, you
> have nothing. so debian gnu/linux would be a non-free os since the bios
> (a very important piece) is non-free.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bollocks. It does little more than act as a bootstrap loader for Linux.

> > and bsd is a free kernel, so we could havd debian gnu/bsd, and have a
> > free os. wouldn't that be fun?
> 
> Maybe, buy the naimg would be even harder, and still i don't se the
> fundamentat difference in code lever you soo clearly has defined. Bios,
> (ok to be non-free) kernel (not ok to be non-free) userland (not ok to
> be non-free).
> 
> Probaly I work to much in a real world with problem that has to be
> solved, where time and cost is of the essence. It's not always a
> possibility to put some man-years into someting that only costs a few
> tusands and then delay everything else the same amouth of time. 

<Overfiend> "necessary evil" is the rhetoric of the morally bankrupt

> > 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.
> 
> 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.

They arose years ago, in the shape of Linux and the Hurd. Guess you
were too busy using non-free systems to notice...

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing,
 `. `'                          | Imperial College,
   `-             -><-          | London, UK