On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 09:53, Humberto Massa wrote: > @ 16/04/2004 00:53 : wrote Anthony Towns : > > >We serve our users best by doing two things: the first is making it as > >easy as possible for them to get at anything they need from an operating > >system, however free it is or isn't; the second is making it easy for > >them to choose the level of freeness they want, and to respect that > >choice once it's been made -- whether that means people want to get > >at nothing that's not 100% DFSG-free, whether it means they're okay > >with GFDL'ed docs, little blobs of unmodifiable binary-only firmware, > >non-profit only programs, or whatever. My belief is that as we start > >taking a stricter interpretation of what can go in main post-sarge, > >we'll also need to start providing better mechanisms for people to choose what > >bits of non-free are suitable in their moral universe. > > > > > You know, this one is a point of view that I understand and respect; it > even changes my mind relating to all this "evil firmware from hell" stuff. > Maybe something in the line of the deb http://www.non-free.org/debian > sarge-plus-one gfdl bin-firmware firmware-from-win-drivers-downloaders > sun-java ??? > Now, this would be really practical and pragmatic. Mmmm. > br,M I like that idea, it gives users the ability to still easily have a choice whether they want their debian install to be 100% free or not and also lets them tailor their system to their needs. Perhaps a question in d-i to determine whether they want to use non-free.org for these non-free firmware and docs would be appropriate? This way the user can still choose either route. -- Chris Anderson <chris@nullcode.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part