On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:22:39AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com> writes: ... >>>Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with >>>non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we >>>support their use and welcome others to distribute such work. >>> >>>================== >> >> This last bit of wording is slightly unclear to me. Should *Debian* be >> allowed to distribute an installer or image with non-free software on >> it? > >Hi Steve. I'm not sure I can reliably answer -- the distinction between >"Debian" as the project and "Debian" as the operating system is (for me) >somewhat blurry and inconsistent throughout the current foundational >documents, and it is equally unclear (to me) in your question. > >Do you intend the Debian OS (which to me includes various installers and >other auxilliary software that is needed to produce and maintain an OS) >or the Debian project (which to me is about the community and not the >deliverable)? Or is your understanding of the situation different than >mine so your question really mean different things to us? I have a >feeling that is the case, but it is subtle. To me, saying "we support their use and welcome others to distribute such work" has an *implicit* suggestion that "the Debian project will not distribute such work itself". I could be reading more into that than was intended, so I thought it was worth checking! :-) >I believe it used to be better in the older social contract which used >'Debian GNU/Linux' in a couple of places which made it clear that the >sentence referred to the deliverable and not the community. That was >lost a couple of years ago, replacing it with 'Debian' which makes it >unclear what it refers to. The website has been similary modified >throughout the years, leading to the same ambiguity. > >Speaking personally (and thus merely as an anecdote), my way to resolve >this conflict (when I belatedly decided to join as DD) has been that >'Debian' as an OS is promised to be 100% DFSG free but 'Debian' as a >project will accept to distribute certain non-free material on its >servers. Thus Debian can be labeled as a 100% free OS but Debian as a >project deals with non-free content but not as a first-class citizen. >This has lead to forks that don't want to be stuck with the same dilemma >-- Ubuntu/etc as a non-free variant and gNewSense/PureOS/etc as a free >variant. This inconsistency may continue to be both a curse and a >blessing, allowing Debian to be relevant to both worlds. Right, thanks for clarifying here! >I agree with you that improving clarity on this topic will be a good >thing. Fixing that is outside of my current goals though, as what I >want to achieve is to see Debian continue to deliver a 100% DFSG-free >Debian OS. It makes me sad to see such efforts to stop that. ACK, understood. It doesn't make me happy *either* that we're in this situation, but there are often tradeoffs to be made where we collide with the outside world. :-( -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature