Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: >> 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.
Okay, so what is a better name? Since the initial/primary purpose of the blend is to produce and support installer/live images built without any non-DFSG artifacts, it seems the name should convey something related to this. Relevant keywords include 'open', 'free', 'libre', 'gnu/', 'dfsg', others? Is 'Debian Deblob' okay to you? Gunnar? 'Debian Noblob'? Would 'Debian DFSG' be okay? Or 'Debian DFSG-only'? The 'deblob' word is coming from the Linux-libre effort, where the deblob.sh script removes non-free stuff in the Linux kernel source code. This is not comparable to how the current Debian Libre Live images are generated, which are built using live-build with a small configuration. But maybe the word could work anyway. I am a little cautious about using 'DFSG' because the Debian community could alter the DFSG definition to permit non-free firmware too, and then the term for this blend would be confusing. But if that happens, renaming again would be possible. Btw, I find the word 'Pure' in 'Debian Pure Blends' odd - does it convey any meaning that is distinct from 'Debian Blend'? Was/is there ever a notion of a non-Pure Debian Blend? I'm not sure to refer to a blend as Pure Blend or simply Blend, or if there is a difference. > 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? Let's try! /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
