On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 02:41:32AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > Anthony Towns wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 09:31:14PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > >> In addition, a package in 'non-free' will be required to hold the three > >> firmware files for ATI's cards. > > *sigh* > > Please note that this is explicitly _not_ the case. Firmware is okay in > > main for sarge as long as it's not distributed in a way that violates > > the GPL. > However, as long as a *new* package is uploaded, what's the point of putting > it in 'main', when it will likely have to be moved to 'non-free' later? The obvious ones are: * it's accessible to people who don't care about firmware freeness, but don't want to worry about randomly non-free programs in the traditional sense. there's obviously a huge bunch of people who think this way. * it feasible to make the kernel packages and installer support this for sarge; getting them to support getting firmware for non-free is highly unlikely. That you don't understand the reasoning behind a policy isn't a good reason for you to start telling people they have to do things they don't. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> Don't assume I speak for anyone but myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Protect Open Source in Australia from over-reaching changes to IP law http://www.petitiononline.com/auftaip/ & http://www.linux.org.au/fta/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature