Re: Non-Free proposal -- yet another draft
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:06:23AM -0600, Chad C. Walstrom wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 08:23:57AM -0600, Raul Miller wrote:
> > However, I received some criticism -- perhaps valid -- that "the
> > Debian system" was itself too ambiguous to stand by itself.
> What I don't understand is the idea that the phrase Debian is ambiguous.
> "Debian will remain 100% free." What is wrong with this phrase? Remove
> terms such as "software", "main", "distribution", and "system" and we
> are left with Debian, as a whole, which will remain free as in libre'.
> Doesn't that say exactly what we want? Non-free is not part of Debian.
> This idea is stated already in clauses 1 and 5. How is this not clear?
I think Anthony objected to this, saying that 'Debian' included non-free
(as the whole ftp service is part of Debian), while 'The Debian
distribution' does not. I could be mistaken though, and I don't have the
nerve to dig through the -vote archives right now. If I misunderstood
him, I'd like to apalogize.