Re: DFSG violations: non-free but no contrib
Lo+AO8-c Minier <email@example.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2008, Robert Collins wrote:
> > I wish I understood the reasoning here - putting aside the fact
> > that most of the software in Debian is under a copyleft licence
> > and so we *must* provide the source. Why is the source for the
> > radio on my wifi card any *less* critical than the source for the
> > driver for my wifi card?
> Because I can consider the wifi firmware a subsystem which doesn't
> contaminate my main OS
It seems to me that you can only honestly consider it so if it
*actually does not* contaminate the main OS. The situation we're faced
with is that non-free works *do* contaminate the main OS; that's the
reason we're having these discussions about DFSG violation at all.
> Now if Debian can distribute a blob which allows my hardware to run
> as indicated by a clear interface with my free OS, that's good
> enough for me.
The result can't be called free, though. So long as Debian is promised
to be free, I expect that promise to be met. It seems, from what you
say here, that you do not expect that promise to be met.
> And if we don't require the hardware to be freely modifiable, why
> require the firmware to be so?
Because it's distributed in an operating system +IBQ- Debian +IBQ- that its
distributor +IBQ- the Debian project +IBQ- promises is freely modifiable
(among other freedoms).
When someone distributes hardware to me and promises it is freely
modifiable, I require *that* promise to be upheld also.
+AFw- +IBw-I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate |
`+AFw- those who do. And for the people who like country music, |
_o__) denigrate means +IBg-put down+IBk-.+IB0- +IBQ-Bob Newhart |