Re: confusion about non-free (Re: Bits from the Debian Eee PC team, summer 2008)
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:01:50PM -0300, Ben Armstrong wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 20:36:17 +0200
> Robert Millan <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Therefore Lenny is not Debian, but a superset of it?
> > This is troubling. Do you have any suggestions on how to address this?
> I have never understood this to be the case. Our codenames refer to
> Debian releases. Both non-free and contrib are not in Debian and are
> not part of the release. What I've always understood is that the
> reason contrib and non-free are labelled 'lenny' is because they are
> supposed to work with that release. I can't see that there's
> anything troubling about this at all. In fact, I always thought this
> was self-evident. Is there really something to be worried over here?
Well, I really don't know. My concern right now is that there's a widespread
confusion, but I have no idea where it originates or what we can do to correct
Giacomo pointed at some possible places, so that's what we have. One of them
is dak layout. I'm not particularly skilled at solving this kind of problems,
but my impression is that much could be archieved by renaming 'main' to
P.S: I really appreciate your positive feedback. I hope I wasn't too harsh
The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."