[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion period: GR: DFSG violations in Lenny

Hash: SHA1

Robert Millan wrote:
> If the project as a whole determines that the Release Team is empowered to
> make exceptions to SC #1 as they see fit, I would accept it [1].

Please stop repeating in an endless loop that the Release Team must focus
on SC #1, while you are ignoring SC #4. Else I will keep repeating ad
nauseam that debian promises its users in SC #4 to "provide an integrated
system of high-quality materials". I don't consider an OS that depends
for installation (and basic network functionality) on software outside
its installation media an 'integrated system' [1].

Arguably, there will be hardware left that will be able to run pure
debian after all the binary blobs are removed, but *a lot of users* won't
be able to use pure debian [2]. If users don't have a second piece of
hardware that already has network connectivity or don't have another
non-free OS around, they won't be able to install debian at all (from the
installation media alone, if that wasn't clear).


[1] I would conclude that debian is broken beyond repair, if its
installation process and its operation require its users to patch the
system with software not officially distributed on its official
installation media and from it official package repository. I also would
not call such an installation 'debian', just as some won't allow a kernel
with firmware blobs be called a 'debian kernel'.

[2] OT: Maybe we should call a system that blends pure debian with
sourceless firmware a 'debian blend'.

Oh, I just learn that this term is already reserved for specialized
sub-distributions that actually don't blend anything [3] ... ;-)

[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/11/msg00001.html
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: