On Thursday, 24 March 2011 13:03:08 Wolfgang Bornath wrote: > 2011/3/24 Romain d'Alverny <rdalve...@gmail.com>: > > Well, that's precisely debatable (and why I'll try to setup a relevant > > survey through marcom). The ISO can be seen as a static commodity > > storage; that it holds core and nonfree makes no such difference as > > that those two media are available from the network without > > discrimination. > > > > So yes, the ISO in itself would not be free anymore; but as long as > > the install process does not pick into the nonfree media unless the > > user asks to, what does it make an issue (not that I have no idea > > about that, just that I'd like to see it expressed again from a > > different POV of mine - and that will help for the survey definition > > too). > > In the public appearance this would make a difference. As soon as > there is non-free contents on the ISO it is a non-free ISO. That we > provide non-free on the mirrors doesn't make Mageia a non-free distro, > only what we offer as "products".
According to which definition/guidelines? According to FSF, we are probably currently non-free. Regards, Buchan