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. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part