Quoting Bart Martens (2022-09-07 00:27:40) > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote: > > > > >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote: > > > > >> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ================================= > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images > > > > >> > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian > > > > >> > archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the > > > > >> > user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > ================================= > > > > >> > > > > >> Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/ > > > > > > > > > >Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short, > > > > >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those > > > > >users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free > > > > >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a > > > > >separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that > > > > >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what > > > > >is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B. > > > > > > > > Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already > > > > started*, where we're going to move firmware things to > > > > non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or > > > > non-free-firmware sections" in your text. > > > > > > I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such > > > new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the > > > started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free" > > > because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today. > > > > I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at > > that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. > not > > He wants "non-free-firmware section" mentioned in proposal C, see above. > > > I suggest you > > just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian > > archive". > > That would indeed leave out the existing section name. I'll consider it. If the purpose of this option is to not shift where the line is drawn regading Debian understanding of what is Free and what is not, then I suggest a "slightly" different wording of "containing software that is free according to The Debian Free Software Guidelines". - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature