Re: NEW handling: About rejects, and kernels

[Eduard Bloch <edi@gmx.de>]

#include <hallo.h>
* Thomas Bushnell BSG [Thu, Mar 31 2005, 06:52:24PM]:
> 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?

Your point is?! Acroread? Or what? That buddy has been removed because
of very stupid distribution limitations, and I welcome the same
treatment for any non-free firmware file (non-free as in "really
non-free by a non-fanatic definition", eg. with distribution problems). 

I do not see how freely distributable (or even GPLed) blobs may hurt us.

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

Because their nature is different, you have to close both eyes in order
to be able to enjoy the discussion like you do.

> > 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"?  

As said, burn all hardware in your house. Now. Please. Then you have
definitely defeated the evil non-freeness.

Regards,
Eduard.
-- 
Na'Toth #2: Ambassador, it is not my place to speculate on how anything gets
into your bed.
                                                 -- Quotes from Babylon 5 --