Re: Debian vs gNewSense -- FS criteria

[MJ Ray]

Richard Stallman <address@hidden> wrote:
> It is normal for software packages (free or non-free) to contain
> various kinds of text (including manuals) which are not software.
> Most of us do not find this shocking.

I think many of us would accept the original sense of software as a
sort of contrast to hardware, to include all the files on the computer
and some other stuff besides, and so avoiding defining freedom by
distinguishing bitstreams.  If we decide that text file A is a
program, text file B is a poem, then we can do more with A than B, but
if C is both program and poem, then why should appropriate freedoms
somehow depend on what we want to use it for.

[...]
> What makes Debian unacceptable is that its inclusion of non-free
> software is not a mistake.  It is an explicit policy decision.

Debian includes no non-free software except as a serious bug.  Some
non-free software is tracked by the network mirrors, bug tracker,
lists and so on, but it is not included in Debian.

But I am sure this has been explained many times and some people think
that they know better than the Debian project what the Debian
operating system is.  Maybe they think because some projects don't
concentrate on producing installation media, no-one does, or maybe
they just want to find some excuse not to accept the good work the
debian project does, which used to be supported by FSF: developing an
operating system that is 100% free software, called Debian.

Anyway, it's good to have an indication that non-free.org would result
in FSF approval of debian.  IIRC, last time non-free.org was
discussed, no-one could get a straight answer from FSF in time.

Regards,
-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/