[Fsf-Debian] Who gets to say what the definition of “Debian” is? (was: No response?)

[Ben Finney]

"Jason Self" <jason at bluehome.net> writes:

> Ben Finney said:
> > Do we not allow the Debian project to say what is and is not part of
> > Debian?
>
> I think that the Debian Project can certainly decide what "is" and "is
> not" part of the Debian GNU/Linux distribution, but does it actually
> make a difference?

When someone says “the non-free section is part of Debian”, we don't
have to waste time examining rival interpretations and their merits.

The Debian project is authoritative on that definition, and we can then
agree that the person has spoken incorrectly. Whatever it is the speaker
means either needs to be said differently, or is simply false.

> It seems that the change needed to the guidelines [1] for the FSF to
> endorse Debian in its current form would open a rather large loophole
> that would permit any GNU/Linux distribution to say "those packages
> are not part of the distribution" and get FSF endorsement.

That's not what I'm proposing. I'm merely asking for clarity of
discussion in this forum at least.

-- 
 \          “I used to be an airline pilot. I got fired because I kept |
  `\       locking the keys in the plane. They caught me on an 80 foot |
_o__)                    stepladder with a coathanger.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/attachments/20120805/a89c76e8/attachment.pgp>