"Alfred M. Szmidt" ams@gnu.org
It might even make certain members of this list understand how non-free is not part of debian's OS
Non-free is clearly part of Debian.
Not part of the debian operating system.
We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component. -- http://www.fr.debian.org/social_contract
Debian/SPI/ftpmasters are legally responsible for whatever is put into non-free.
Debian - no. SPI - sometimes. ftpmasters - sometimes. Those interested in this aspect can see the head-scratching in the debian-legal threads last month about the Sun Java fast-tracking. http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/
and how it can be used to help get more free software,
One does not get more people using free software by saying: Here, have some non-free software as well.
Indeed. I think that's part of why it's not on the distribution CDs. However, you don't let people know that something is non-free software by never mentioning its non-free-ness and you never free software by ignoring it. Similarly, you won't let people know which companies offer non-free software by ignoring them, or persuade those companies to improve.
But will the FSF's ambivalence towards debian allow us to use these handy and familiar labels?
The FSF has never had mixed feelings towards Debian, the stance has always been quite clear: 100% free software. Something that Debian once along time achived, but not anymore. [...]
Debian still achieves it as much as it ever has, aiming for 100%. The non-free archive existed when FSF sponsored debian development: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1995/debian-devel-199509/msg00520.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-announce/debian-announce-1996/msg00008.html Instead, in later years, we've seen FSFers recommend other distributions which had mixed non-free software into their CDs. Debian takes some crap for being clear and honest in its labelling. Maybe debian flames from misguided FSF supporters are another example that GBN might learn from?
Thank you for illustrating my pessimism,