Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:11:39PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> email@example.com wrote:
> > Why is freedom of software only important for the central
> > processing unit, but immaterial for other processing usints?
> Who said it's not important? I believe it is, just that it's not a
> battle which should be pursued by Debian by not distributing sourceless
> It is clear that by banning firmwares from Debian we harm our users
> (easily verifiable) much more than we help the cause of free software
> (it's hard to prove that it would be of any help, and the burden of
> proof lies on who supports it).
Indeed, but would it not make more sense, to aknowledge that the firmware is
non-free, and then argue that we should include it nonetheless, instead of
making obviously false claims like "firmware are not programs" ?
> > Si, am I silly and alone in thinking that firmware is binary
> > computer programs? Let us ask google to define: firmware:
> You are silly in pretending that the DFSG and the widely shared
> consensus among developers always intended considering them non-free
> and inappropriate for main.
The last of the three pre-sarge non-free GRs confirmed the fact that firmware
is indeed a code binary, and should have source. A majority of the DDs voted
that, and unless there is another GR reverting this, that opinion is binding
to the project.
That said, Steve's GR is not the most smart way to solve this issue.