On Tuesday 26 September 2006 20:40, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:18:37PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > The Debian Project: > > (a) Affirms that the project strives for and encourages 100 percent > > free software, including the availability of source for all > > types of files. > > So, we "strive for 100% free software", whatever software might mean > in this case. But then you say there needs to be source available > for all types of files, which would include things like firmware, > logos, images. So, this part seem to be about the same as Don's > proposol? Well, I agree with the drive for free software as an ideal. I agree that Debian as a project should promote it. I agree that hardware manufacturers should be encouraged to provide source also for firmware blobs and that we should work withe them to relicense drivers if that is needed. In those respects I guess I largely agree with Don. I'm all for making users aware that they are using "software" that is not totally 100% free, so let's tell them when the installer needs to load sourceless firmware (and add a nice Free Software rant to educate them). > > (b) Resolves that the project needs more time before a decision can > > be made on how sourceless firmware or other types of files (such as, > > but not limited to, logos, images and video) are to be dealt with. > > But here you seem to be saying the opposite, and that we need "further > discussion" for some of those types of files. What I don't agree with is that the mere absence of source for something that is by nature different from general code "real programs", is by definition only useful for people who actually own the hardware the firmware was written for (so they can be said to have paid for the firmware) and is otherwise properly licenced, is sufficient reason to harm users by, for instance, forcing them to load that firmware off a separate medium during installation or to use a "non-free" installation image. Debian finally has an installer that makes it easy to install a system (almost any system) and is generally complemented for its ease of use. And what do we do? We strip it! So I personally would like to see the project to adopt a more pragmatic stance on that subject: keep the ideals, work to decrease the need to support sourceless firmware, but at the same time support our users. However, this amendment is not about my personal preference. It's about how this issue has been "discussed" so far: loads of opinions, a few facts, no way to really distinguish between the two for most developers. It's also about the consequences of the current policy: Debian being by far the most exclusive of all distributions; classes of users being driven away from Debian because of reduced hardware support; developers leaving the project because they no longer recognize themselves in it. The further discussion is IMO needed to really research the legal situation surrounding different types of files and the risks of claims against the project or members, to prepare and present to the project a clear set of alternatives including what adoption of each of these alternatives means in practical terms for our users (who are after all our priority) and _only then_ decide how we actually want treat logo's, firmware, etc. The current "discussion" is extremely hard to follow because of the other discussions, flames and personal feuds intermingled with it. Let's take the time to prepare position papers in which the subject is presented coherently after proper research, let's discuss our options as a project based on those papers and _only then_ decide. Hope that clarifies things for you. Please also see the mail I wrote with my original proposal [1]. Cheers, FJP [1]http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20060911.234718.76b5880f.en.html
Attachment:
pgpOpJXZq9D_o.pgp
Description: PGP signature