On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:20:09PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 03:33:27PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 05:04:49PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > > I would find it problematic if the official way to install Debian > > > *required* a non-DFSG image. > > > > would you also find it problematic if there were *two* official > > images, a "free one" (as we know it) and a "free one plus firmwares"? > > It would be nice to have both installers presented on the front page, so users > can choose. I have no strong opinion on whether the "plus" installer would be > called official or not. Same here. I've seconded Gunnar's proposal because it's the one which adds the option. However, referring to it as official is not something I'm fully comfortable at this point. I'm wondering how the d-i team feels about that (having the image with non-free bits called unofficial). Or whether it makes any sense at all, say, having such an essential component developed by fellow Debian members, using official Debian resources, and still being named 'unofficial', just for our convenience (?) Btw, thanks Steve and all involved on this front, I'm just a bit confused and appreciating the discussion. Bests, -- Tiago
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature