On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:40:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > We never included non-free applications in main because we felt that > there was no need to. And, indeed, even in 1993 it was possible to use a > computer without any non-free applications. > That doesn't hold with the firmware argument. With applications, we had > the choice between "Free but less functional" and "Non-free but more > functional". With firmware we have the choice between "Non-free but on > disk" and "Non-free but in ROM". There isn't a "Free" option at all yet. > So I think the real question is "How does us refusing to ship non-free > firmware help free software?". If a user wants to use Debian, then the > obvious thing for them to do will be to buy hardware that has the > non-free firmware in ROM. Ironically, this will actually make it harder > for them to ever use free firmware! > I think it's reasonable to refuse to ship non-free code when there's > actually a choice or when it's likely to provide an incentive to > implement a free version. But right now, I don't see any evidence that > refusing to ship non-free firmware will do anything other than cost us > users without providing any extra freedom. AFAICS, there has never been a debate about whether to ship non-free firmware, only about where to ship it. If not having source for firmware makes it non-free, then it seems obvious to me that under the DFSG, it shouldn't be shipped in main. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature