Re: non-free firmware: driver in main or contrib?
> Raul Miller writes:
> > It's a matter of point of view.
On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 03:42:41PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> I am quite certain that you have never worked with the drivers I was
> describing, and the chance you have worked with any of the boards is
> nearly zero. Your assumption that the differences are anything like
> you describe is baseless, and your inference that my description is so
> wrong is insulting.
I was describing data differences.
The significance of data differences are in the mind of the beholder.
Drivers have nothing to do with significance. You know that -- that's
practically your point.
> > And what are the consequences to Debian with this choice?
>
> It depends on whether you assume users can and will use contrib or
> non-free. If you assume that, I do not think it has significant
> impact, although it is likely to save the kernel packagers lots of
> work. If you assume users cannot or will not use contrib or non-free,
> it is the difference between users needing to supply firmware or both
> driver and firmware (and likely recompiling their kernel).
I assume that some users will use contrib or non-free, and that some
won't.
That assumption shouldn't surprise you.
> > In particular, what freedoms do you think it is acceptable for us to
> > require of any "opaque blobs" that we would be distributing with main?
>
> My suggestion does not involve distributing "opaque blobs" with main.
> To repeat: THE FIRMWARE FILES THEMSELVES WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED BY
> THE USER OR IN NON-FREE, UNLESS THEY QUALIFY UNDER THE DFSG. For
> example, some firmware blobs in the Linux kernel are the output of an
> assembler, and the assembly source is included in Linux. That kind of
> firmware blob is not opaque, and could be distributed in main.
In that case, we should probably be treating this as analogous to
players for various forms of content. If there are any significant free
examples of that content we allow the player into main. If there are
no significant examples of that content, the loader really does have a
dependency on non-free software content.
And, if the driver won't work without the loader, then the driver has
a dependency on the loader.
Is it really too much to ask that there be some free firmware examples
before we deal with that class of firmware?
> > Are you saying that you want us to ship opaque blobs where we take no
> > responsibility whatsoever for their character?
>
> I have said nothing of the sort. Would you like to apologize for
> being such a boorish insulting troll, or should I just write you off
> as someone not worth listening to?
You are one of a collection of people advocating similar things.
If you expect me to limit my questions to addressing only you have
said and to ignore issues raised by others, maybe we shouldn't be
having this discussion on a public list.
Reply to: