Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
On Fri, Nov 15, 2002 at 03:02:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Michael Cardenas <mbc@debian.org> writes:
> > This argument for the GR is totally baffling to me.
> The Debian distribution is supposed to be free software. Many, many,
> many people think that it currently includes non-free software. We
> should fix that problem.
You know, I'm increasingly wondering if the confusion is that of users, or
the developers who're proposing this GR.
Why do you think "The Debian distribution is supposed to be free
software"?
Please don't answer with tautological references to the social contract --
why do you think we _wrote_ the social contract in the way it was?
In my opinion, the answer is that we want to provide both a complete
free distribution that doesn't rely on any other software, and we want
to provide a Linux distribution that people would want to use whether
they give too hoots about the principles of free software or not. Having
the core Debian system be completely free software, and an additional
non-free component achieves those goals admirably.
The way, I believe, Branden has put this in the past is that he wants
to stop trying to make a distribution that tries to satisfy people who
might need non-free software, because that will make it easier for Debian
to better achieve its other goal: providing a complete free distribution.
That's a perfectly sane reason to support the GR; semantic arguments
about what "Debian" is, or what the "Debian distribution" is ("Ah,
but Debian *distributes* non-free software, does it not? THEREFORE IS
NON-FREE NOT PART OF THE DEBIAN *DISTRIBUTION*?! AHA!"), or, worse,
not what they actually are but what ignorant people *think* they are,
are just pointless distractions.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: