On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:21:24AM -0800, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: > I think that there are real steps we can (and some people have) been > taking to make the non-Debian-ness of non-free more clear to > users. Finding ways that we can communicate this separation in such a > way that its easy for users that really want non-free software but not > so easy that people instinctively choose it en mass is a good gaol > > One benefit is that it all ends up being a lot less controversial than > the sorts of proposals that spawn this thread. :) I disagree. One of Mr. Towns's tenets is that non-free *is* "part of Debian", just not "part of the main distribution"[1]. Some of our users, perhaps most, seem to perceive it that way as well[2]. They don't come to us through our Social Contract, they come to us through our works. Our Social Contract and our works should be more consistent with each other. One or both can be changed to realize that state of affairs. [1] Message-ID: <[🔎] 20040107111416.GB14549@azure.humbug.org.au> [2] Message-ID: <[🔎] 3FFF593D.20402@nailstorm.com> -- G. Branden Robinson | The National Security Agency is Debian GNU/Linux | working on the Fourth Amendment branden@debian.org | thing. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Phil Lago, Deputy XD, CIA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature