Le lundi 03 novembre 2008 à 10:12 +0100, Aurelien Jarno a écrit : > I haven't say that because they are not executed on by the CPU they are > more free. What I mean is that we have those discussions because they > are not executed on the main CPU, which makes them different than other > non-DFSG compliant software. Then some people consider that acceptable, > some other not. This case is very similar to non-free documentation, which is not executed on any CPU at all. It sounds bogus to split firmware in a specific archive and to not do it for documentation, data, etc. If you want to make a specific distinction for software for which we don’t have a source and which is executed on the host CPU, I’d prefer to see the non-free rules updated to ban such software from our archive, and to add restrictions to it such as: * availability of source code (for binaries meant for the host CPU); * legal possibility to autobuild the package (for arch-any ones); * legal possibility to add patches for security updates. This way we could add the non-free archive to sources.list without wondering whether installing stuff from it will introduce an unfixable root security hole. If more and more systems need non-free because of firmware, this is a move that I’d like to see. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `- our own. Resistance is futile.
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=