On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Wichmann, Mats D <mats.d.wichm...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> In this case, I could see room for some improvement. instead >> of just "(Google Chrome Browser)", maybe the link should say >> "(includes Google Chrome Browser)" to make the situation a bit >> clearer. > > Yes, the way that one works out ends up appearing a little unbalanced > in favor of one specific component. > > This wording isn't snappy enough to be usable, but this is what > we really mean: > > 1. unsrestricted image > 2. image with more functionality, requires one-time acceptance of one or > more EULAs > > Maybe someone's smart enough to figure a way to express that > in a better way...
To be precise about the wording here, the image built without proprietary software isn't actually "unrestricted." Some of the FOSS software bundled into it is covered by licenses that restrict use and/or distribution. I believe that in the Debian hierarchy, all of the proprietary bits are placed in a repository named "non-free." To borrow their conventions, perhaps one of the images could be named "MeeGo-Non-Free" and the other image could be named just plain "MeeGo" (or "MeeGo-Free", MeeGo-Libre, MeeGo-FOSS) Although we may search for other terms to describe the difference between the two images, the factual difference between the two is that one contains proprietary software and the other does not. Let's be utilitarian and choose a naming scheme that describes the difference. It'll help keep things straight in our heads and make it easier for us to describe the difference to others. That way we don't have to call one the "Regular" image and the other the "Google Chrome" one. :-) --R _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
