Re: A rebuttal (was: Re: Formal CFV: General Resolution to Abolish Non-Free)
email@example.com (Marek Habersack) writes:
> > Do you wish Debian to be known for providing non-free software? The
> > social contract says that Debian is 100% free software, yet you quite
> > clearly point out above Debian has an obvious double standard. We say
> > Debian is 100% free software and yet it isn't really. Debian has been
> > providing non-free software and people expect this of us now. When we
> > start tossing around the idea of changing that, it becomes obvious that
> > many of us don't really mean for Debian to be 100% free software.
> I would suspect that you should already know what many said before on that
> topic. Non-free is supposedly NOT a part of the Debian DISTRIBUTION, so
This is correct.
> Debian IS 100% free software, isn't it?? What most people opposed to the GR
The Debian Distribution is. The Debian Project is not.
> are afraid of is that the non-free would be taken away from the Debian
> *infrastrucure* which is NOT identical to the *Debian distribution*. If the
That is correct.
> facts I outlined are true, then the GR doesn't make sense at all! ANd that's
Why? Why does it not make sense to remove the non-free software from
the Debian Project?
> the whole point - the GR is a purely political move (and not a very clean,
> moral and right one...)
John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <email@example.com>