Re: Bug#239952: kernel-source-2.6.4: qla2xxx contains non-freefirmware
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 03:40:16PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> In that case, I see no reason for Debian to claim to its users that
>> QLogic binaries are free, which Debian does by putting these binaries in
>> "main".
>>
>> Distributing them in "non-free" is fine if they're legal to distribute.
>
> This is fine, until we start getting users complaining that Debian
> doesn't work on their system because the new installer include
> non-free by default.
Tell them "Buy a system with hardware with free firmware, or use non-free
software". Same as we tell people with WinModems "Buy a system with
hardware with free drivers, or use non-free software."
> So if we start putting firmware in non-free, it will pretty much
> guarantee that Debian will have to keep distributing non-firm (as was
> affirmed in the recent vote),
Yes, well, it was affirmed, so what's the problem here?
> and the installer may very well have to
> change to at least offer non-free to be added to
> /etc/apt/sources.lists.
Well, that seems very reasonable to me. :-)
> This is especially true if (as is very
> likely) more and more hardware use OS-loaded firmware.
This is a problem, though not perhaps in the way you're thinking. In the
long run, if more and more hardware uses OS-loaded non-free firmware,
you'll end up with more and more of your system running non-free software.
Eventually, in this nightmare scenario, all hardware will require non-free
code to activate, and that code will control what you can do with the
hardware....
> So ironically enough, the position of the firmware-is-evil fanatics
It's not that firmware is evil, it's that *non-free* firmware which is
shipped only in software is inappropriate for a FREE software distribution.
> will likely enshrine the continued existence of non-free,
That's not ironic. Not for me, anyway. I don't believe that "Everything
MUST be FREE" -- I believe that everything being *advertised* as free
("Debian will remain 100% free software") ought to be free. I was in favor
of keeping non-free, and am strongly against including non-free stuff in
"main". That is not contradictory, hypocritical, or ironic in any way,
contrary to the bizarre claims some people have been making.
Firmware is just code for an embedded device. We think free software is
valuable on embedded devices -- or would you be in favor of a "Debian for
Embedded Devices" which was all non-free?
Look, the value of the DFSG freedoms for software-style (OS-loaded) firmware
is just the same as the value of them for software. There is no principled
reason to treat them differently.
Perhaps you're saying that it will be too hard to get hardware manufacturers
to make free firmware? Well, they said it would be too hard to get
software manufacturers to make free software -- and they had a better case
-- and they were wrong. And in any case that's never been considered an
excuse for including non-free software in Debian.
> and what's
> more, cause non-free to have to be included by default during the
> install process.
Um, not by *default*, most likely -- as an *option*. There are plenty of
machines still in existence which don't require firmware loading.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: