Re: If Debian support OS certification?
Paul Wise writes ("Re: If Debian support OS certification?"):
> For Debian I expect your proposal "do not require loading externally
> supplied non-free firmware" is something that most of Debian can agree
> is a reasonable endorsement target for now.
Yes.
I think this is rather unfortunate for all the reasons you set out in
your mail, but I can't see a politically workable alternative bright
line.
> > Otherwise, we'll have to display different types of logo, like "works
> > with Debian ... but", and then that starts to confuse users, which is
> > counter-productive.
>
> I think for hardware that doesn't support whatever criteria we come up
> with, we just wouldn't have a certification logo but would say "this
> hardware is *not* Debian certified because ..., but can run Debian if
> ...". For "certified" hardware we would include the logo and say "this
> hardware is Debian certified, but you need to be aware of these
> proprietary components and what their capabilities are".
I think this is a very good idea.
A trustworthy certification report that said "this machine would have
passed the certification, except that the wifi card requires a
separately supplied firmware blob from Debian non-free" would be
extremely useful to many users and potential purchasers.
I wonder if we could have a certification level (and associated name,
logo, etc.) that specifically permits exactly this kind of deviation.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: