Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Steven Fuerst <svf@mssl.ucl.ac.uk> writes:
> The problem is your definition of what is in the distribution isn't
> quite the same as what users (like me) actually think it means.
Right now, the only thing that makes the status quo reasonable under
the Social Contract is the explicit and important recognition that
non-free is *not* part of the distribution.
If you want to insist that whatever we might say, it *really* is, then
that means that the current status quo has broken down, if it ever
worked.
And then we are faced with two options: a Debian with non-free
software as part of it, or a Debian without it.
Reply to: