On 07/06/2011 12:32 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > >> I suspect that a "Debian Blend" (i.e. not "Pure") can be anything based >> on Debian, possibly with the intend of some day become a "Debian Pure >> Blend". > > "Debian derivative" is a better term for such things IMO. I would agree with Jonas that the difference in the terms we use is intent. While a Blend strives to mainstream with Debian, a derivative strives to differentiate from Debian. I realize there's a big grey area here. It's one thing to hold as an ideal to mainstream everything you include into Debian, it's quite another to have a realistic plan for doing so. But I would tend towards a more inclusive use of the term Blend (without "Pure") to refer to those who are philosophically aligned with our approach even if technically you might consider them derivatives. Nor do I think it waters down the term to be inclusive in this fashion. >> I suspect that a "remastered Debian system" can just be anything based >> on Debian. > > Sounds like a Debian install to me, unless it is a livecd with a > different set of packages to the "official" livecds, then I would > consider it a derivative. Not sure exactly what you mean. I've seen few 'remasters' that I would consider anything other than a derivative. Or at least, since the remastering process tends to be ad-hoc or a driven by custom scripts, I would tend to classify all such things as derivatives by default unless proven otherwise. Ben
