Re: An appeal to d-i devs for software freedom
On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 06:59:55AM -0600, Russell Hernandez Ruiz wrote:
> Dear debian-installer developers,
Hi Russell,
Hi Others,
> I feel the need to begin this message by stating what it is NOT. This message is
> NOT meant to contest the decision to include non-free firmware in the installer.
> This post concerns UI.
>
> Primary proposal: that the priority of the question concerning non-free-firmware
> in the installer be changed from "low" to "high".
>
> The current situation is that debian.org proudly states "Debian is a complete
> Free Operating System!" with a big Download link. That link then serves the user
> an installer of Debian+proprietary firmware. That installer then proceeds to
> install the proprietary firmware **without prompting.** Many of us do not find
> this acceptable.
>
> However, I was able to confirm in IRC that the installer in fact already has the
> ability to prompt about non-free firmware (the repository, wholesale), if only
> the user chose to "expertly" configure their system.
>
> User "cheapie" on IRC reports that he "keeps running into users over and over
> again who seem to /not/ want firmware packages installed," and because of that,
> "would personally prefer for the priority to be high."
>
> Other users are also puzzled why Debian /seems/ to have decided to only allow
> rejecting the non-free components via the even more expert, hardly documented,
> boot flag mechanism.
>
> I suggest that it is not an "expert" decision to choose freedom. The user
> downloaded what loudly purports to be Free Software, so they ought to be offered
> a choice to get that. Furthermore, it's just the right thing to do, for their
> freedom's sake.
>
> Please increase the priority, from "low" to "high", of the the non-free-firmware
> installer question.
>
Convert that into a patch and/or merge request.
>
> Secondary proposal: improve the description of the non-free-firmware question.
>
> Currently it is worded thusly:
>
> > Some non-free firmware has been made to work with Debian. Though this firmware
> > is not at all a part of Debian, standard Debian tools can be used to install
> > it. This firmware has varying licenses which may prevent you from using,
> > modifying, or sharing it.
>
> > Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway.
>
> > Use non-free firmware?
>
> I suggest the following wording:
>
> > Some computer parts require that users install programs on them in order to
> > function fully or at all. For example, some Wi-Fi cards and audio chipsets may
> > not function without them. This type of program is called "firmware".
>
> > Although not at all part of Debian, some non-free firmware has been made to
> > work with Debian. This firmware has varying licenses which restrict your
> > freedoms to use, modify, or share the software, and generally does not have
> > source forms that you may study.
>
> > Please choose whether you want to have it available anyway, and automatically
> > installed according to your hardware.
>
> > Use non-free firmware?
Convert that into a patch and/or merge request.
> It is important for users to understand the purpose of firmware, and the
> concequence of selecting "Yes", to make an informed decision.
>
True
>
> This letter is primarily concerned with the simple changes above, but I would
> like to document a good, relevant suggestion from IRC: to give a summary of the
> non-free programs, and a way to customize the list, so that, for example, I may
> consent to CPU microcode, but refuse to use the on-board network card. We
> understand, however, that this is a much more involved change.
> Kind regards,
> Russell Hernandez Ruiz
Groeten
Geert Stappers
Yes, it is me
--
Silence is hard to parse
Reply to: