Re: LCC and blobs
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 04:58:52PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> to support this. The obvious thing to do here is not to attempt to find
>> a way that we can interpret the SC that makes sense - the obvious thing
>> to do here is to decide what we want the SC to say and then change it so
> Fundamentally, what's so different between interpreting the SC so it
> makes sense and deciding what we want the SC to say?
One of these things is constrained by the current wording. There's a
limit to what contortions can be undergone to get the SC to make sense
in the current situation.
> Put differently, what should we base our decisions on when we decide
> what we want the SC to say?
The effect on free software and our users. The ideal situation is one
where we what we do to help one doesn't hinder the other.
Personally, in this case, I don't see any way that allowing drivers that
depend on non-free firmware on disk into main harms free software when
the alternative is currently drivers that depend on non-free firmware in
flash. I do see ways it can help users.
Matthew Garrett | email@example.com