Agreed. Maybe it helps to summarize the options, my take is:
Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing and sometimes
enabling non-free firmware -- there is no more free installer
Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one
Proposal C allows presenting free and non-free installers equally visible.
Proposal D is NOTA thus permit publishing a non-free installer like
today, reinforcing that interpretation of the social contract
Proposal E is proposal A plus change to social contract to permit it
/Simon
Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:
> On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
>> tl;dr: No
>> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
>> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/683a7c0e69b081aae8c46bd4027bf7537475624a.camel@debian.org
>> tl;dr: No
> ...
>> Linking to the non-free installer from the Debian front page seems
>> acceptable (or at least not in direct conflict with the social
>> contract), but depending on how it is executed may be poor judgement and
>> would give a strange impression of what Debian is about.
> ...
>> So with all these words, my belief is that publications of non-free
>> installers are already acceptable under the social contract as long as
>> they don't claim to be part of the Debian system, and that it isn't the
>> case that the non-free installer is the only installer available.
>
> Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
> except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature