> Which suggests the nonfree software integration the FSF spoke of is in
> there. After all, like you just said, if it's an opt-in away to get the
> nonfree software the nonfree repos are listed but not enabled until one
> answers "yes" to activate the nonfree repos Debian hosts. If this isn't the
> case, and the FSF's requests are being met it's a simple matter for someone
> from Debian to submit the latest Debian GNU/Linux for a proper review and
> possible inclusion on the list.
I wish Debian and the FSF would work together to resolve this issue.
It shouldn't be that hard to modify Debian so that `non-free` is only ever
used based on an explicit user request (and to let the user specify
that this explicit request only applies this one time).
Along the same lines, the `non-free` section should be split in two:
`proprietary`, `non-dfsg`, where the `non-dfsg` part would only contain
packages which the DFSG rejects as non-free but which many people in the
Free Software world consider Free nevertheless (basically FSF's docs).
Stefan
_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk
