On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 08:17:36PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Martin Loschwitz <madkiss@debian.org> > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 03:54:21PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Scripsit Norbert Tretkowski <tretkowski@inittab.de> > > > > > Thus Debian shouldn't run on hardware which requires non-free binary > > > > firmware? > > > > False. We have nothing against people running non-free software on > > > their machines, and we explicitly pledge to support those people. > > > May I remind you of the social contract, article 4? > > Why, certainly... > > > Actually, if we remove all those drivers from kernel which need > > binary firmware files, > > Please read my messages again. I am arguing that the drivers > themselves do *not* need to be removed from the kernel. The non-free > firmware itself cannot be distributed in main, but there should be > nothing against having a kernel in main with the *capacity* to load > non-free firmware. > non-free is neither part of Debian GNU/Linux nor is it integrated into the installation system. Thus, this idea does not help anyone. The drivers must be functional once you load them at installation time. > > _If *this*_ is what you call "Our Priorities are Our Users", > > there's a strong disagreement between the two of us ... > > Our priorities are also free software, and we quite explicitly promise > that main will include no non-free software. Do you propose that users > who rely on that promise is worth less than users who buy hardware for > which there are no free drivers? > Our priority are *Users* and free software (obey the order ...). I see it from a user's point of view. And if we don't make him able to install the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, we violate the Social contract. While the discussion about non-free was rather minor-important in my point of view, this discussion is of major importance. Because without non-free, you can still run a fully operational Debian system. Without the drivers or rather the firmware files, you can't. Dropping those drivers or even those firmware files from kernel means punishing and thus losing users. Period. > > As member of the Debian Desktop Subproject, it is my strong believe that > > in order to achieve the social contract, we do not have a choice other > > than keeping all those drivers in the kernel. > > What about the part of the social contract that promises that mail > will remain 100% free? > For me, the promise to keep our users' needs in mind, is more important. Without the kernel drivers, many of them won't be our users anymore. And if they aren't there anymore, we won't be there anymore. If they can not even install Debian, we can't make them happy with free software. At the moment, you are willing to join a group while you are arguing for dissolving exactly that group at the same time. > > > What we should not do is distribute the non-free firmware in the > > > archive where we promise not to distribute non-free software. > > > What we should not do is to punish users for wanting to use Debian with > > throwing drivers they *need* away. > > Keeping our promises does not equal punishing any users. > It does because we keep users away from installing Debian on their systems. We punish them for having hardware for which no free driver is available. And that is completely bogus. > -- > Henning Makholm "The practical reason for continuing our > system is the same as the practical reason > for continuing anything: It works satisfactorily." > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org -- .''`. Martin Loschwitz Debian GNU/Linux developer : :' : madkiss@madkiss.org madkiss@debian.org `. `'` http://www.madkiss.org/ people.debian.org/~madkiss/ `- Use Debian GNU/Linux 3.0! See http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature