On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 10:28 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> * Would it prevent the current presentation of the non-free installer?
> tl;dr: No
> * Would it prevent the alternative presentation suggested in
> https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/[email protected]
> tl;dr: No
...
> Linking to the non-free installer from the Debian front page seems
> acceptable (or at least not in direct conflict with the social
> contract), but depending on how it is executed may be poor judgement and
> would give a strange impression of what Debian is about.
...
> So with all these words, my belief is that publications of non-free
> installers are already acceptable under the social contract as long as
> they don't claim to be part of the Debian system, and that it isn't the
> case that the non-free installer is the only installer available.
Thanks. So it seems B/C/D/NOTA are approximately duplicates,
except that B/C specify slightly more about non-free presentation.
--
bye,
pabs
https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part