Re: First Draft proposal for modification of Debian Free Software Guidelines:

[Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT>]

tb@becket.net wrote:

>> 2.  In the past, the issue of documentation, fonts, images, sound
>> files, and other non-program type files was "dealt with" by treating
>> them as if they weren't "software".  
>
>This is not really true.  We mostly ignored the issue, but they were
>always software.  We never said "oh, these aren't software".  Instead,

*You* did not, other people did and still do.

>> 3.  Since the issue of the "freeness" of documentation, fonts, images,
>> sound files, and other non-program type files is now clearly a
>> "software" issue, it makes sense to clear up the situation by adapting
>> the DSFG to the needs of these types of software, if it is of benefit
>> to the cause of Free Software.
>
>Yes, but we must do so with an end to the cause of Free Software.

Refusing to distribute binary firmwares does not help free software.
You may choose between getting the firmware on a EEPROM chip or having
your driver load it, but at the end of the day you will still use free
software.

So, if removing binary firmwares makes using free software harder for
our user it actually harms the cause.

-- 
ciao,
Marco