Hi Jonas, On 8/31/22 18:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
The only way I could see to solve that conflict (other than interpreting the official installer as not part of Debian) was to keep the free-only installer around for purity reason even though generally we would promote another unofficial installer (and here the word "official" refers to what is treated as formally our main project deliverable).
I think that, besides the project goal :), there are other very good reasons to keep the free-only installer around, specifically that its licensing status is simple.
A large part of installations now run inside virtual machines and have no use for device firmware. Having a free-software-only installer is an easy way for image builders to ensure that anything they build will be redistributable.
The way I read the Social Contract, we can indeed not call an installer that contains and installs non-free bits "official", but there is no restriction on putting it on the same download page.
My expectation is that users will be pragmatic about it, and it might even raise a bit of awareness that the status quo is suboptimal because there are parts of the computer that are not under the full control of the user.
Simon
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xEBF67A846AABE354.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature