Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: >> > 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. > > The point I was trying to make is that if I label danish as greatest, > then I implicitly make it awkward for non-danes to claim that they are > also-greatest.
I'm with you here. > Translating to your case: You make it awkward for others to identify > other uses of Debian as also-pure. > > I fail to see a similar need labeling non-medical Debian use as > also-medical, or for non-junior Debian users to label themselves as > also-junior. > > >> What I fail to see is how the messaging about Debian Libre suggests it >> is for "greater people", for your analogy to work. > > You want to label Debian-without-non-free-firmware as the pure one. > > But Debian-without-english-locale is also pure. > > And Debian-without-Qt and Debian-without-GTK are also pure. > > "Pure" is a broad term. "Junior" or "med" or "danish" or "GNOME" is not. I have not used the term "pure" to describe Debian Libre. I agree it is not useful to label Debian Libre more pure than anything else, if it leads to these concerns. The term "pure" is coming from the Debian Blends policy: https://blends.debian.org/blends/ch02.html It seems all of the official Blends are Pure Blends because that is the terminology to use for a "remix" of Debian for a niche community. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
