Re: Discussion - non-free software removal
Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> 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.
Sure, and the status quo is a not unreasonable way to work things.
But it depends on people actually understanding the difference between
the distribution itself and the ancillary extra stuff.
This whole thread started because someone (again, sigh) confused them,
and I said "whoops, that's wrong", and I was *criticized* for
correcting the usage.
Reply to: