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

Re: On the freeness of a BLOB-containing driver

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
neroden@fastmail.fm (Nathanael Nerode) writes:

Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
This is wrong.  Glenn Maynard?

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.
Oops, very sorry.  Glenn Maynard?

Hand-quoting sucks, but I've been reduced to it recently.

Reply to: