Going ahead with non-free-firmware

[Philippe Cerfon <philcerf@gmail.com>]

Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware
> section
> and move the non-free firmware blobs there.  I'm wondering what we
> need
> to do next?

While it's good that at least something happens it's really sad and
kinda disturbing to see that a more narrow-minded solution is taken,
while a better proposal lies on the table.
Especially since the non-free-firmware seems to make it less likely,
that a non-open could ever happen.

When Debian is anyway about to add new suites and people will have to
adapt to that, why not implementing a more powerful schema that not
only allows to opt-in to closed-source firmware, but also allows to,
at the same time, opt-out of other closed-source software, while
allowing at the same time to opt-IN to non-free, but open software?

It'll be just one further suite that needs to be added, gaining far
more possibilities.

- non-free (as the current non-free, excluding anything that would
need to go to non-open)
- non-open (everything from non-free for which there are no sources available)
- non-open/firmware (firmware that would be in non-open)

perhaps arguably a 4th one:
- non-free/firmware (i.e.that would be firmware that is open but not
e.g. freely distributable, but does that even exist?)

Alternatively one could just have:
- non-free (as the current non-free, excluding anything that would
need to go to non-open)
- non-open (everything from non-free for which there are no sources available)
- firmware (any non-free or non-open firmware)


So again, what's wrong with the proposal I've made few days ago in #809705?
It doesn't seem to require much more technical work, just moving
packages and it's a far more powerful solution.


Sincerely,
Philippe.