[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software

 --- Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: 
> Given that the Social Contract already explicitly states the use of
> the non-free section as the compromise between the needs of our users
> and the need to clearly label which software is DFSG-free and which
> are not, I personally think that moving all kernel packages to
> non-free (and then continuing to support non-free, per the results of
> the most recent GR) makes the most amount of sense.

In the long run the goal should be to separate the non-free components
of the kernel from the free core of the kernel.  Peripheral software
can be moved to separate modules or, better yet, to user space.

As more non-free software gets moved to the non-free section of the archive,
the importance of that section for users will grow.  Debian may eventually
decide to relax some of the self-imposed restrictions on what it does with

I assume that such a relaxation would be resisted.  However, it may be
possible to come to some compromise with those who despise the non-free
section.  I can imagine introducing a rule that non-free henceforth
shall contain no software for which there is a free substitute in the
main section of the archive.  This rule would eliminate the software that
(I suspect) the anti-non-free people really want to get rid of while
letting in the software that Debian users need.
Thomas Hood

Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 

Reply to: