On Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 03:49:52PM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > If you are proposing a Debian Pure Blend called “Debian Libre”, it would be > using ① Debian's trademark and ② Debian's infrastructure. It would badmouth > the project by implying that full-Debian, that what our project does that > is _not_ accepted by “Debian Libre” is, well... Not free.
Technically speaking, we don't seem to have put any procedure around approving, or disapproving the name of a Debian Pure Blend. I would argue that this is shortcoming in Debian Pure Blends manual and policies around Debian Pure Blends[1]. [1] https://blends.debian.org/blends/ As far as Debian's Trademark Policy[2], it is fundamenally focused on entities separate from the Debian organization, such as some company (e.g., Canonical) that might want to use Debian in their marketing material. An external company couldn't use Debian as part of their product name (e.g., "Debian Libre") because that's not permitted by the Policy[2]. [2] https://www.debian.org/trademark But in the case of a Pure Blend, the work is being done by a group of people inside Debian. So a Pure Blend with the name "Debian Libre" isn't really any different from Blends named "Debian Junior" or "Debian Med". If the latter is allowed, then why not the former? Or for that matter, what if someone showed up and wanted to create a Debian Blend named, "Debian Hitler"? Who gets decide whether that name should be allowed? The DPL? Perhaps with a GR to override a decision of the DPL? > The balance is difficult, yes, and it has changed over the years. And it > might change again in the future. We might have to revise our standing some > years from now. But I do not want a Debian Developer (whom I trust and > whose technical capabilities I admire!) to take 99.5% of Debian and rebrand > it as “Debian Libre”, basically announcing to all of our users that we are > working towards a mediocre goal. I'd also make the argument that it might be counter productive. If Debian Libre gives users a bad experience, because if a very large percentage ofusers who try to use Debian Libre find out that it doesn't work, and they have to download another installer, they are going to get... annoyed. It might end up giving term "Libre" the bad connotation of "hopelessly impractial". So let me suggest a compromise that might alleviate some of Simon's concerns as detailed here[3], without needing to have a separately named blend. Reading [3], it appears that Simon has two complaints that I think are very reasonable. The first complaint is that that Debian Live always will load non-free firmware modules, and when a system is installed using Debian Live, the non-free firmware modules are always in use. The second is that booting with the non-Live (traditional) installer image, firwmare=never probhits loading any firwmare, both free and non-free. [3] https://blog.josefsson.org/2023/07/11/coping-with-non-free-debian/ If both of these issues could be addressed; namely that there is a way to add a control firmware=free-only to both Live and traditional Installer images which disables using non-free firmwares, and installing non-free firmware. It allows users who have downloaded the default Debian installer to be able to avoid using non-free firmwares. And if it turns out that forgoing non-free firmware causes fundamental failures, such as no WiFi support so that the Debian Live installer isn't able to download Debian Packages --- well, the user can also much more easily re-enable non-free firmware without having to download a completely different installer image. At that point, the only reason to have a "Debian Libre" is purely for marketing purposes. And that's one where people of good will can disagree whether that denigrates the default work and decision made by the Debian project --- or whether it advances the cause of Libre Software -- or whether it will be a brand disaster for Libre. My personal opinion is that it will be door number #3, but this may something where Libre ideologues will need to FAFO. - Ted
