Defining Free Software Business

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Debian might have this as an `aim', but aiming is no good if you
   > cannot fire your riffle at the bullseye.  Something that Debian
   > has failed to do on a continued basis for several years.

   "Everyone can make errors" -- Alfred M. Szmidt, yesterday, in
   Message-Id: <20060626112830.5D7CB44003 at Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE>

Debian has made the for 10 years or more now, and still not fixed
them.  They are not errors anymore, but simply lack of caring for user
freedoms.

   FSFphile seemed a convenient inoffensive shorthand for me.

Then you won't mind me tell you to stop taking whatever drugs your
doctor subscribed.

   So, roughly equivalent to Debian's main archive.  There are other
   "Fedora foo" archives containing other things.

Can you point me to these `other archives'?

   There is little to choose between Fedora Core and Debian's main
   IMO, except Fedora Core includes non-free-software FDL-covered
   works

FDL covered are not software, so it cannot be `non-free software', nor
can it be `free software', since it isn't `software' to begin with.

   I don't think utoto or dyne:bolic are major distributions yet and I
   didn't find a commitment by any of them as strong as debian's.  No
   talk of the future and no commitment to Hurd.  Debian has both.

Debian still recommends, condones, and supports non-free software.
Doesn't make it any better.  Debian GNU/Hurd like Debian GNU/Linux are
equally bad in this regard, since both contain non-free software.