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

Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net> wrote:
>> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk>

>>>> I'm ok with (1), provided we do it in the non-free archive.

>>> This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.

>> Which ones?

> non-free isn't part of Debian. Using loadable firmware is becoming
> increasingly common in hardware design. In the fairly near future, most
> modern hardware is likely to require it in order to allow installation.

I fail to see how your response describes a logistical problem with
shipping the firmware in 'non-free'.

>> It would be a better course of action to solve those problems than to
>> deliberately mislabel non-free firmware as free.

> I'm not suggesting that we claim that firmware is Free,

Putting it in 'main' rather than 'non-free' constitutes such a
claim. That is what the distinction between 'main' and 'non-free' is FOR.

> but putting it in non-free is:
> (a) going to result in an awkward situation for installation, and

You have not described any such awkward situation, as far as I can see.

> (b) not likely to provide any extra freedom to the user

The point is not to provide extra freedom *per se*. The point is to
label things correctly such that the user *knows* whether he is
getting non-free software.

> I've suggested before that creating a separate section for firmware may
> be the best solution.

You have not described how that would differ from using 'non-free'.

Henning Makholm                            "What a hideous colour khaki is."

Reply to: