Re: Call for seconds: DFSG violations in Lenny
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 08:39:02PM +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Robert Millan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >> or that we help our users by moving the Linux
> >> kernel plus the installer out of main,
> > How is shipping packages in non-free instead of main supposed to be against
> > the interests of our users?
> You seem to forget that non-free is not a part of Debian. Technically,
> you are right - moving the Kernel to non-free wouldn't be against the
> interest of our users. Debian wouldn't have any users anymore, so their
> interests couldn't be violated.
No, I keep that in mind. But not being part of Debian is not at odds with
supporting it using the project's resources (SC #5), so I don't see what the
problem is. The only consequence is that you can't refer to the result as
"Debian" because of SC #1. But SC #4 can be more than satisfied with that.
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."