[Fsf-Debian] Who gets to say what the definition of “Debian” is? (was: No response?)
gquigs at gmail.com
Sat Aug 4 17:14:14 UTC 2012
> > What project or system is non-free a part of?
> Why do you assume it is part of any project or operating system?
> The claim I'm refuting is that non-free is “really” part of Debian. The
> organisation which gets to declare that is the Debian project; they say
> it's not. That should settle whether it is or is not “really” part of
Let's be more precise. There is the Debian distribution and the Debian
"Packages in the other archive areas (contrib, non-free) are not considered
to be part of the Debian distribution, although we support their use and
provide infrastructure for them (such as our bug-tracking system and
I agree that the Debian Project can define that the Debian distribution
does not contain contrib and non-free.
non-free and contrib are however part of the Debian Project. You cannot
define, maintain, support, provide infrastructure for something and then
say it's not a part of what you do.
At the very least it falls under name confusion .
> Now, I agree that there is widespread confusion over this in people's
> understanding of what is in Debian; which is a large part of why this
> forum has been created. But we participating here need to agree on
> definitions as fundamental as this, or agreement on what to do is rather
I agree. The confusion is however enough for the FSF to not consider the
Debian distribution free.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Fsf-collab-discuss