Re: New summary: Binary peripheral software
--- Theodore Ts'o <email@example.com> 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.
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now