Re: Proposal: The DFSG do not require source code for data, including firmware
> 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).
> And, given the trend of multiple processing usints, and not
> all of them being symmetric (the cell, for example, the central
> processing unit serves as little more than a traffic cop), with
> processing increadsingly off loaded to the graphics processing unit,
> physics processing units, encryption processors, biometrics
> processors, peripheral processing units, we should be careful about
> how we define processing units for which software freedom in
OK. Let's get back to this when it will be a problem.
> 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.
> So, unless otherwise stated, the foundation document terms
> refer to commonly understood meanings of words; looking to
> dictionaries, encyclopedias, and common references.
I'd say that they refer to the meaning commonly accepted by developers.