Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

md@Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri) writes:

> On Mar 26, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote:
> 
> > You kept saying nothing more than "we don't care about modifying them
> > because nobody will ever want to", which is, well, simply false.

> Yet another strawman. What is false is your description of my arguments,
> which were much more complex than this.

You made many arguments, but that doesn't mean they answered the two
specific questions: what freedoms, exactly, and why reduced ones for
this particular class of software?

> This was obvious from the context at the time I written that post, I
> consider acceptable for a temporary SC exception having only
> redistribution rights.

Something that says "wait for the hardware to change" is not a
"temporary exclusion".

> > And nothing there explains why firmware should have less freedom,
> I see some arguments there, so maybe you should take more than 30
> seconds to read the page. Or even better, look at the debian-devel and
> debian-legal archives where you can find more arguments from me and
> others.

There were plenty of arguments, but they were nothing more than "we
really need this hardware".