[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal - Deferment of Changes from GR 2004-003

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:06:58PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Xavier Roche <roche@httrack.com> writes:
> > I fully agree: the firmware is a evil, proprietary code. But it is always
> > true: the fact that you load it on startup in the remote hardware, or the
> > fact that it already exists in ROM, doesn't change anything. The problem
> > is then, considering that we provide open drivers for proprietary hardware 
> > and proprietary firmware [ROM], where is the limit ? In this view, all
> > drivers should be in [contrib], because they require propietary software
> > [firmware] to work. But drivers aren't in [contrib], because we consider
> > that there is a specific exception with hardware/firmware. Not making such
> > exception for distributing firmwares is then not logical, IMHO.
> I don't think this is right.  If there is no dependency, the thing
> doesn't have to be in contrib.
> Remember, a thing goes in contrib because it is only useful with
> something in non-free.  But a driver is useful for both the
> proprietary firmware and any free firmware that should arise.  Even
> though the possibility of the latter is remote, I don't think it's so
> remote that it means the thing should go in contrib.

That doesn't matter. To date, the policy has always been that a package
must go in contrib if it has a dependency on something in non-free which
has no *current* free implementation. This makes a lot of sense; after
all, non-free is just software, so you could theoretically rewrite
everything in there, including libraries, firmware, and whatnot. If it
were accepted that a hypothetically (though nonexisting) free
implementation is enough to warrant moving a package from contrib to
main, why should we still have contrib at all?

     smog  |   bricks
 AIR  --  mud  -- FIRE
soda water |   tequila
 -- with thanks to fortune

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: