Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Thu, Mar 31 2005, 06:52:24PM]:
> Eduard Bloch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded:
> > "We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least
> > some of us) decided to demonstrate how can we can strike against the
> > non-freeness of the hardware development assets (which has ever been
> > there but we don't care). And you are the lab rats for our experiment
> > but in our reality, the hardware manufacturers are the ones to be
> > blame!!!1"
> Should we same the same thing if we are asked to include a non-free
> documentation reader for a proprietary documentation format?
Your point is?! Acroread? Or what? That buddy has been removed because
of very stupid distribution limitations, and I welcome the same
treatment for any non-free firmware file (non-free as in "really
non-free by a non-fanatic definition", eg. with distribution problems).
I do not see how freely distributable (or even GPLed) blobs may hurt us.
> In other words, the question remains: why should we have a different
> rule for firmware and not other things?
Because their nature is different, you have to close both eyes in order
to be able to enjoy the discussion like you do.
> > Because it does not RUN on anything inside of our scope (host machine).
> > You try to extend it by cheating but IMHO most people will refuse to
> > support that.
> "Our scope"? Where is that written? Why should the freeness of
> something depend on whether it is a "host machine"?
As said, burn all hardware in your house. Now. Please. Then you have
definitely defeated the evil non-freeness.
Na'Toth #2: Ambassador, it is not my place to speculate on how anything gets
into your bed.
-- Quotes from Babylon 5 --