Re: Debian and non-free
Charles Plessy <email@example.com> writes:
> For me the problem is definitely that what "Debian" is is not well
> defined. Is it the Project, the people, the software?
Debian is the operating system; the foundation documents reflect this.
The Debian Project is the project organised around creating the
> I find it logigcally close to impossible to say that something that
> is the product of the work of the Debian developpers and
> contributors and that is hosted by the Debian project is "not
I find it logically close to impossible to say that works that are not
available using the default configuration of the install media and,
even once installed, don't receive security updates or release
management, are "part of Debian".
That it's not "logical", of course, doesn't mean the confusion won't
arise. Evidently there is plenty of confusion over what is and is not
part of Debian. However, that can't be attributed to "logical
> I usually solve it by saying that it is not the "Debian operating
> system", but this does not reflect the foundation documents.
This is analogous to GNU, which is an operating system, versus the GNU
Project, which is the project organised around creating that operating
Also analogous is the unfortunate confusion in the public mind; many
don't even think of GNU as an operating system at all, but a
collection of "tools" :-/
> No, but clarifying the foundation documents just before a stable
> release is maybe not the most optimal use of our time ;)
Why is the default assumption (of you and others) that this thread is
about a change requested before the next stable release? I would think
that an unusual request, certainly not the interpretation I'd assume.
\ “Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it |
`\ correct, not tried it.” —Donald Knuth, 1977-03-29 |