Re: On the freeness of a BLOB-containing driver

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

neroden@fastmail.fm (Nathanael Nerode) writes:

> Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>If it comes down to "the driver, on its own, would not be acceptable for
>>main because it is not functional; but as a practical matter, we allow
>>it aggregated with the rest of the kernel because splitting individual
>>drivers into contrib is a pain for everyone involved and not worth the
>>theoretical benefits", I can live with that.
>
> Yes, yes!  Let me say that this is precisely what I think.
>
>>"contrib" exists for software which is free but fails SC#1, "we will never
>>make the system depend on an item of non-free software".  Moving something
>>from contrib to main that does, in fact, depend on such an item is a pretty
>>basic violation of Debian's principles.
>
> Suppose the thing being moved is not a vital part of the system.  Then,
> although the item being moved depends on non-free software, does the
> *system* really depend on it?
>
> Then it pretty much comes down to what you said above. 
> :-)
>
> -- 
> This space intentionally left blank.

You misquoted. That wasn't me.

MfG
        Goswin