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
> 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