Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > Quoting Simon Josefsson (2026-03-01 14:08:57) >> Gunnar Wolf <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Simon Josefsson dijo [Sat, Feb 21, 2026 at 08:13:07PM +0100]: >> >>> I guess it all boils down to Debian people not wanting you to badmouth >> >>> the >> >>> Debian project using Debian resources for it. >> >> >> >>Please help me improve motivation for Debian Libre so it doesn't come >> >>off as badmouthing. That's not the intention, and to me, the choice of >> >>basing Debian Libre on Debian speaks a lot about the good things in >> >>Debian. It would be more work to base a libre OS on macOS or Windows. >> >> >> >>What Debian resources are you thinking about? >> > >> > 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. >> >> I don't follow this. A Debian Libre blend would be curated for a narrow >> audience that care about a particular topic. It doesn't reject or >> invalidate anything else in Debian. > > If I make a Pure Blend for the narrow audience of danish-speaking > people, and then call that blend "Debian for greatest people", I not > only say something positive about danish people, but also implicitly > something negative about spanish and australian people. > > Do you see the point now?
Somewhat (thanks!), but wouldn't such an argument also argue for canceling the entire concept of Debian Blends? Assuming then "Debian Med" pisses of non-Med people. Or "Debian Junior" pisses of non-Juniors. What I fail to see is how the messaging about Debian Libre suggests it is for "greater people", for your analogy to work. Maybe you and others see that more easily, and then I'm happy to discuss changes so that association doesn't happen, and this could turn into any regular Debian Blend that doesn't piss of anyone else. Although I suppose someone will always find things to be upset about, but if the Debian Blend approach is going to work, some acceptance for non-majority viewpoints is necessary. If helping a minority offends the majority, the majority can help by creating a safe space for minorities to not be harassed by the majority. I view the Debian Blend policies as an example of that approach. I am also not confident that people's objections here are only about how Debian Libre is communicated, but if it is also about technical choices. There is certainly disagreement on the technical choices, so changing communication would not overcome that disagreement. It might just make things more unclear and harder for users to understand what is what. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
