[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian Libre - blend/pureblend/derivative?



Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> writes:

> hi,
>
> for the record I find this usage of libre to be silly, offensive
> and factually wrong. This is also not first offensive project
> abusing the word "libre", so this is not really speficially aimed at
> this project or the proposer.
>
> I just feel spitted in a face by a clown and wanted to share
> that, instead of swallowing it once again. Also, because of all of
> this, my brain hurts.

Surprisingly I find myself agreeing or sympathizing a lot with that -- I
find the "libre" word diminishing and sometimes counter-productive, but
tentatively used it because it fits a well-known pattern and should get
the message across what the effort is about.

Except I don't understand what you mean with the "factually wrong" part:

There is no ambiguity that the official Debian bookworm and trixie
images contains non-free proprietary software that we don't have source
code for, is there?  That fact is even encoded in Debian's social
contract now.  Removing the non-free parts of something is what "libre"
variants are usually about, and that is the goal here.

> (Maybe instead of abusing the word "libre" it would be better to use
> descriptive names like "Debian, where hardware bugs cannot be fixed".
> Surely this sounds less catchy than libre...)

The Debian Libre Live Images allows the user to opt-in and use non-free
firmware if someone desire that.  On some machines, I will use it to get
working WiFi.  I just feel strongly that I shouldn't be forced to touch
those blobs, because they are a supply-chain bomb waiting to happen
(among other reasons).

/Simon

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: