On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at > that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you s/now/not/ > just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian > archive". Hi Kurt, Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C: ================================= The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images and live images) containing non-free software from 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. ================================= The modification: Old: containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive New: containing non-free software from the Debian archive The old phrase was misunderstood as if this proposal would be opposing the addition of a new section named non-free-firmware. The new phrase better reflects that software in section non-free-firmware is also covered. Then why not simply mention section non-free-firmware? Well, this proposal is meant to be more future proof. This proposal is applicable to an installer using the non-free-firmware section, and also to the existing non-free installer. And to any future designs of non-free installers. My subjective comparison of the available proposals so far: - Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing non-free firmware. - Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one. - Proposal C keeps the free installer and no longer hides the non-free ones. - Proposal D would be equivalent to NOTA in my understanding. Proposal C could use some more seconding. If you find that proposal C is a valid option on the ballot (regardless of what you'll later vote for), then you're most welcome to add your seconding. Cheers, Bart
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature