Quoting Simon Josefsson (2026-03-02 09:20:30) > Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > > >> >> 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. > > > > Sorry, that was a brain fart of mine. Of course I meant "Libre" there. > > > >> I agree it is not useful to label Debian Libre more pure than anything > >> else, if it leads to these concerns. > > > > Do you also agree it is not useful to label a single Debian Pure Blend > > more "Libre" that anything else? Because as I understand it, that is > > the very point that Gunnar was making and that I tried to examplify. > > Debian Astro is more Astro-tailored than Debian. Debian Junior is more > Junior-tailored than Debian. FreedomBox is more FreedomBox-tailored > than Debian. > > "Debian Med" contains the "Med" stuff from Debian, but doesn't prevent > the non-Med parts of Debian. "Debian Edu" contains the Edu-related > stuff from Debian, but doesn't prevent the non-Edu stuff. FreedomBox > contains the FreedomBox-related stuff from Debian, but doesn't prevent > the non-FreedomBox stuff. > > Just to pick some existing Debian Pure Blends. > > Using the same comparison, Debian Libre is more Libre-tailored than > Debian. And Debian Libre contains the Libre-related stuff from Debian, > but doesn't prevent the non-libre stuff. > > Is the concern that some people find the word "Libre" offensive here? > Do they also find the FreedomBox offensive? Isn't one point of the > Debian Blends concept to offer minority tailored custom niche profiles > of Debian? Establishing safe spaces for minority views is a sign of a > healthy organization, and I think the Debian Blends concept has been > successful in that.
It is the concern that "Libre" is similarly broad as "great", indeed. > That said, if naming were the only concern, renaming a Debian Libre Pure > Blends to something else is always a possibility. I think Debian Deblob > was suggested. It seems the concerns are not limited with the name, > though, but I hope we can iterate to gain acceptance. Black lives matter, indeed! I do suspect, however, that it is possible to have a conversation where we do *not* lump multiple concerns together. Concretely, it is my understanding that Gunnar did in fact only have the concern of ambiguous naming in mind, which I insist is the topic of at least this subthread. Can you please, pretty please, stop trying to drag me into other debates than the one about a need for distinct labeling? - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
