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

Re: DRAFT for a GR proposal concerning the Sarge release

Lewis Jardine wrote:
> As I understand it, Debian makes a point of considering the interests of 
> 'unrelated third part[ies]', especially when it comes to the chance of 
> copyright infringement.

So does Debian consider the interests of SCO then? They also claim
copyright infringement.

> If a fully working, tested solution to load 
> non-free firmware from userland into the kernel (thus avoiding the 
> linking problem)

Linking means to bind some object files together. Those firmwares
aren't distributed as object files.

> fell from the sky tomorrow, I suspect very few people 
> would suggest that it was A Bad Thing, and that the kernel was better 
> when it had potentially dubious, non-free blobs in it.

Which relies on the rather weak legal theory that compiled in
firmware is part of a derived work, while the same firmware in
a ramdisk image (or even a CD image) suddenly constitutes a
collection of works.

> In my opinion, the problem isn't the principle, merely the practicality: 

Principle kills practicality, ATM.

> a delayed Sarge would be annoying, but the products that are necessary 
> for an 'anally-free' Sarge would be of great benefit to users of both 
> Debian, and Free Software in general.

What exactly are these great benefits? I see diminished driver support
and a lack of documentation, or alternatively non-free as a rather
mandatory part of a Debian installation. And this still doesn't count
the fight if a jpeg or some font descriptions can be source.

> Clause four of (even the unamended) social contract, in my opinion, 
> suggests that later is better than less free, and thus the amendment was 
> The Right Thing, even though it may delay Sarge.

In my opinion, invoking the Social Contract is Debian's version of
Godwin's Law.


Reply to: