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

Re: more evil firmwares found

Martin Loschwitz wrote:

> 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 ...).
Wrong, that doesn't imply an order; they're coequal in priority.

> I see it
> from a user's point of view.
Not this user's.
> And if we don't make him able to install the
> Debian GNU/Linux operating system, we violate the Social contract.
Oh no!  Debian isn't installable on my toaster!  Debian is *violating the
Social Contract*!

That line of argument is BS.  Debian doesn't guarantee that the Debian
system will work on any particular hardware.

> 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.
May I say again, I CAN.

> Dropping those drivers or even
> those firmware files from kernel means punishing and thus losing users.
> Period.
I assume that before Mozilla was freed, you were in favor of shipping
Netscape in main?  If so, then fine, you're consistent, I understand where
you're coming from (and I still think you're totally wrong).  Otherwise you
are being inconsistent.

>> 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.
Then I assume you believe that the NVIDIA drivers should be in main? 
Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.

Make sure your vote will count.

Reply to: