Am 2007-11-17 17:13:41, schrieb Bruce Sass: > The way I see it: > > - if all HP printers required non-free software which a user was > required to download then HPLIP would already be in contrib because > it would be useless without additional proprietary software I have 5 HP Printers (3 Laser and two DeskJet) which have never used proprietary drivers... > - if all HP printers shipped with all drivers and firmware they > require then HPLIP would be in main because no other software would be > necessary for HPLIP to be fully functional, regardless of whether the > drivers and firmware were proprietary or not OK, when I have bought the Printers, I have had Floppies of a Mini-CD to install there Driver-Stuff. And I had copied some ppd (???) stuff to get ONE of my Laser-Printer running under Linux. So this mean, IF you have bought a HP-Printer, you have gotten Floppies or a CD with the original HP-Drivers and this mean, Debian CAN distribute such prnter definitions or hpow they are called.. > - if HP shipped Linux drivers and firmare with the printers they would > still need to provide an update mechanism and Debian would be pressured > to package it So better use an autodownloader for the updates BUT let it not start automaticaly. Only on EXPLICIT user request. > or is it a convenience function which makes life easier for everyone > (users have the nicest possible experience, no extra work or packages > for Debian, HP gets the control they want), and ripping it out could > be construed as unnecessarily hampering a users right to use whatever > software the want regardless of its freeness (which would violate the > Social Contract)? Then I have the question: "Why have they bought THIS printer, which works only with NON-FREE software?" If I have bought the printer, I have already a legal license to use the proprietary driver and I think, the installer should be support downloading the stuff from the Internet or be able, to look on the CD distributet with the printer to get the driver... But I think, Debian should ask HP for a legal distribution license. > If it is a thin-edge then we may as well just put HPLIP into contrib > and save ourselves a bunch of work in the long run. Agreed. > If the convenience of having an update mechanism included in software > providing more functionality is great enough then Debian should do the > short term work and come up with some guidelines with respect to: how > much functionality is needed for the software to be considered more > than just an installer, and what kind of functionality the non-free > blob being managed is allowed to contain. > > If it is deemed desirable to have HPLIP in main but undesirable for it > to manage non-free blobs of any description the offending code should > be ripped out of HPLIP and packaged for inclusion in non-free. However, > I think this route pretty much guarantees the maximum amount of work in > both the short term and long run because we would need to create and > maintain a fork of HPLIP. I think, this is very undesired... Thanks, Greetings and nice Day Michelle Konzack Tamay Dogan Network Open Hardware Developer Debian GNU/Linux Consultant -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/ ##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant ##################### Michelle Konzack Apt. 917 ICQ #328449886 50, rue de Soultz MSN LinuxMichi 0033/6/61925193 67100 Strasbourg/France IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)
Attachment:
signature.pgp
Description: Digital signature