Re: "keep non-free" proposal

[tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)]

Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@debian.org> writes:

> The role non-free plays and the distinction between the distribution and
> the project was a reflection of the compromise at the time between the
> people who wanted to produce a distribution and the people who wanted to
> persue a political goal of 100% free software.

Right, it's a compromise.  That's my point, and the problem is that
the compromise is:

"You can distribute non-free packages, as long as you don't call them
part of Debian."

The second half of that has been nearly erased, and Anthony and Sven
have said here that it's pointless and pedantic to insist on it.

Well, it was a compromise, and if they can't keep their half of the
bargain, it's broken down.

Thomas