Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
Raul Miller <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 02:21:03PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Does this not strike you as mad? We make a distinction between main and
>> contrib because we want to discourage non-free code. The distinction
>> you're drawing instead merely encourages vendors to put their non-free
>> code on an eeprom. It doesn't advance the cause of free software, and it
>> doesn't help our users.
> It does strike me as a bit mad, to suggest that hardware vendors are
> going to be redesign their hardware, to move a driver from debian contrib
> to main.
> If it were that important to them, they'd should have done it right in
> the first place.
Where does "right" come from? You're continuing to imply that hardware
that has firmware in ROM is somehow more free than hardware that
requires firmware to be loaded by the OS. Neither is the "right"
solution - it depends on your requirements.
> Oh, wait, maybe you're suggesting that they had some OTHER reason for
> putting those bits in rom? If that's the case, your claim that it
> doesn't help our users is a bit specious.
> [Or, more succinctly, how about we discuss real cases rather than
> straw men.]
Customers make strange demands. As a result of tooling up for a single
production run, it might then become cheaper for them to use the same
design for the generic consumer part.
Anyway. You didn't answer my question: is your definition of dependency
based on who ships the firmware, or is it based on the medium which
contains the firmware?
Matthew Garrett | firstname.lastname@example.org