Re: "contrib" and "nonfree" distribs
Le 28 févr. 2014 à 19:22, Octavio Alvarez <alvarezp@alvarezp.ods.org> a écrit :
> On 02/28/2014 09:29 AM, Solal Rastier wrote:
>> I not compare Debian with Windows. The FSF publishes a GNU/Linux freedom indicator. Debian is proprietary, sorry.
>
> Ah! The FSF website [1] says otherwise. The FSF website acknowledges
> Debian as Free Software as in "conscientiously keeps nonfree software
> out of the official Debian system", but it does not endorse it (by the
> title of the Web page).
>
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html
>
> See? Get your facts straight. It's not the same "not to endorse" than to
> "it is proprietary". Also, "non-free" is not the same as "proprietary".
>
> Windows is not even in the list because it *is* proprietary, flat. By
> stating Debian is proprietary you are, in fact, comparing Debian
> licensing with Windows licensing. You are saying that Debian is as
> proprietary as Windows.
>
> Again, get your facts straight or nobody will care.
>
> And please (and this has nothing to do with Free or Open-Source Software
> at all), next time, if I reply off-list to have a private conversation,
> please be respectful and keep my response off-list.
>
> Finally, you still top-posted. Do you even understand what that is, at
> least?
>
> Do you accept now that you behaved like a troll?
>
My mail client top-posting automtically. I don't compare Windows and Debian. Windows is proprietariest than Debian, but Debian isn't 100% free. Now, think about the utility of "contrib" and "nonfree". We must create free replacements to proprietary, not put proprietary in Debian.
Reply to: