Re: Firmware & Social Contract: GR proposal
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 01:30:25AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 10:21:18AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> We could have met those expectations of the d-i and kernel teams had
> >> taken the issue seriously before now. Their failure to do so does not
> >> translate to an emergency on my or Debian's part.
> > The failure to do this is no more the responsibility of the d-i or
> > kernel teams than it is yours or mine. They are volunteers, just as you
> > or I are, and they have no more responsibility to work on anything they
> > choose not to do so, than you are personally responsible for ensuring
> > Debian meets its commitment of providing a non-free area in its archive
> > and supporting users who need the software there.
> So does this work for me too? Can I go and stash non-free stuff in my
> packages, and if others complain, simply raise a stink and insist that
> nobody has the right to order me to remove it?
Feel free, but unlike the installer and the kernel, which are both
release-critical components in and of themselves, your package is likely to
be removed from the release altogether if you do this.
There's also something of a difference, IMHO, between dropping sourceless
firmware from the kernel with the result that some users will be unable to
install etch at all, and requiring that you not add arbitrary other non-free
stuff to your packages that should be in non-free.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.