[BadVista Advocate] Free/Non-free Distribution

[Sunnz]

We could talk about non-purely-free distros on the web site, just not
in the way of recommending it, right? Like presenting all the suitable
options, but make a recommended option of a purely-free distro.

I think the problem is that sometimes people make it sound like
"purely-free distros are the only choice and 99% free distros must
die". It'll be good if we can make this point clear now.

2007/5/2, Jacob Maynard <indymaynard at maynard.homelinux.com>:
> To all whom it concerns,
>
> This should be the final note on this subject. Binaryfreedom has made it
> clear what their goals and intentions are. They will not support an idea
> that promotes a non-free distribution. This means that we cannot recommend
> Ubuntu and the likes (with binary only drivers) on the website. This DOES
> NOT mean that we cannot recommend Ubuntu, or OpenSuSE, or Fedora, etc. to
> new users that consult us personally.
>
> Again, on the web sites, we must recommend a totally free distribution, or
> use a vague statement that openly conveys support of only totally free
> software. However, there will be those of us who recommend the not
> entirely free distributions when asked directly by a new "customer." It is
> your decision regarding what YOU will support. Let's stop this pointless
> arguing about why we should or shouldn't support certain distributions.
> Focus on discussing why DRM is bad and how it affects everyday users,
> write them into a paragraph, and put up some information that people can
> Google and research. Let's be productive, rather than just intellectual
> about our ideals.
>
> Thanks for your time,
> Jacob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>


-- 
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html