On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 09:09:37PM -0700, Grant H. wrote:
> Ok, I will preface this by saying I do NOT speak for the FSF.  However,
> in my personal opinion the new documentation does in fact clarify the
> position of Debian but I don't think it does enough to fix the "issue"
> from LibrePlanet's view.  Here are a couple examples of why I think that:

Hi Grant, thanks again for following up and for acknowledging
progress. I agree that what you point out *might* be problematic, but I
think at this point we'd really need some sort of authoritative answer
to solve the "FSF-approved" part. In the meantime, I'm happy that we've
improved things no matter what, which is part of the beneficial
side-effects I was hoping to obtain with bug reports like this one.

Let me just drill-down a bit more in your analysis:

> 1) Additionally, it must take care not to recommend nonfree software.

I think this point is no longer in cause: mentioning something exists is
arguably different than recommending. In fact, with the new text by
Osamu we now recommend *against* using contrib/non-free and motivate
that recommendation.

> 2) What would be unacceptable is for the documentation to give people
> instructions for installing a nonfree program on the system, or mention
> conveniences they might gain by doing so.

This point might still be in cause, you're right. I guess we might go
down a bit more on this, but the barrier between mentioning that
contrib/non-free exist (that is somehow a direct consequence of the
Debian Constitution, IMHO) and "giving instructions" on how to install
software from there is very blurry in my opinion.  If someone has
wording suggestions on how to fix this, they're more than welcome.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to