Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

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

Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de> writes:

> That is bullshit/lies/cheating (pick one). It should be worded:
>
> "We are not willing to support his hardware just because we (at least
> some of us) decided to demonstrate how can we can strike against the
> non-freeness of the hardware development assets (which has ever been
> there but we don't care). And you are the lab rats for our experiment
> but in our reality, the hardware manufacturers are the ones to be
> blame!!!1"

Should we same the same thing if we are asked to include a non-free
documentation reader for a proprietary documentation format?

In other words, the question remains: why should we have a different
rule for firmware and not other things?  

>> Why do we insist on the source for openoffice.org or emacs?  Is it
>> just mindless?  No.  It's for good and worthy reasons.  You need to
>> explain why those reasons somehow don't apply in the case of firmware.
>
> Because it does not RUN on anything inside of our scope (host machine).
> You try to extend it by cheating but IMHO most people will refuse to
> support that.

"Our scope"?  Where is that written?  Why should the freeness of
something depend on whether it is a "host machine"?  

If something is outside our scope, then why are we distributing
software for it at all?  I'm happy to say we have a limited scope, but
you seem to want it to be both within and without our scope.

Thomas