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

Re: Bug#353277: ndiswrapper in main

[Eduard Bloch]
> I cannot remember a GR which says exactly this. Neither a GR which
> would clarify our definition of "firmware". And the one I follow is
> that it is more hardware than a software component.

Good.  If firmware is hardware rather than software, there is nothing
to discuss.  Debian doesn't distribute hardware.  (And since we don't
distribute it, there's no reason to argue about whether it's free or

If you think Debian should *distribute* firmware, that's pretty much an
admission that it is not hardware.

> I guess you mean that "Editorial changes" farce where the majority of
> the developers just did not participiate and still feel beeing
> cheated by its creators.

Come on.  The farce is that, two years later, people are _still_
complaining because they didn't read the thing they voted on, or that
they didn't bother to vote at all.  Can you all please stop?

> please file RC bugs against all kernel packages immediately. Their
> packagers allow people to run non-free software, we need to strike
> against this evil, now!

I know you're not that stupid.  You know very well that there is a
difference between something that _can_ work with both free and
non-free software, and something that _must_ use non-free software.
People have speculated that ndiswrapper "could be used with free
Windows drivers", but that seems not to be true, as nobody has been
able to find any free Windows drivers.  Oh, except the one nobody would
use, because it's a port of a native Linux driver which is already in

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: