Re: Policy on Binary Firmware Fetching in Main (e.g. foo2zjs)
To use a rough analogy, compiz doesn't work on certain graphics cards
unless one uses the proprietary driver for that card, but that doesn't
in itself make compiz non-free.
right, but this situation is different. so lets assume that foo2zjs
is analogous to compiz and the printer firmware is analogous to a
non-free video driver. then the analogous situation that we have is a
compiz package that includes a script that the user can invoke to
download and install the non-free driver.
i conjecture that most would quite disapprove of this situation.
they would rightfully want the non-free driver to be in its own package
and reside in the non-free archive that is "unsupported."
If compiz automatically downloaded and
installed the appropriate driver as part of installation then that
would seem to make it non-free. If compiz had such a download as a
post-installation option that could be skipped, then would that mean
it remained free?
i don't see a difference. if any part of the package requires access
to non-free data to function correctly, then the entire package should
be considered to depend on non-free.
this is different from the compiz situation where the package can make
use of non-free stuff if it's already provided by some other package.
Reply to: