Re: Summary of the DebConf firmware discussion
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On the other hand that state went on for years and we should be able
>> to form our own opinion about freeness and how to abide to our
>> commitment to users and free software.
>
> We have formed our own opinion. Repeatedly, over many years and many
> votes. We can certainly have another vote if there is the desire to do
> so. But implying that we have not formed our own opinion up to now is
> IMHO just wrong.
I think the key distinction this time around is that the outcome would
be a fairly narrow exception, which would allow for both "pure" and
"non-pure" official media.
Is a vote truly necessary? The Social Contract seems to be
sufficiently flexible already:
SC#1 says, "We will never make the system require the use of a
non-free component." The availability of a "non-pure" image does not
impose any requirement for it to be used. It simply becomes one more
choice that a user can make. That is more freedom, not less IMHO.
SC#5 says, "We have created contrib and non-free areas in our archive
for these works." These images could simply be considered as part of
the non-free archive.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: