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

Re: Proposal - Amendment - allow hardware support from non-free into the debian system

On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:29:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2006 at 08:20:06AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>> I've tried to consolidate all the little "I would second this if"
>> and remarks that people made (and I agree to), but that MJ Ray
>> didn't outright reject. How about something like that? Would in
>> particular MJ Raj, Sven Luther, Julien Blache agree with this?

>> Changes:

>>  - don't speak about "non-free drivers", but only _firmware_. This so
>>    that we don't create an unwanted loophole that would permit
>>    ... non-free drivers that run on the "main" CPU in the kernel.

> Notice that one way of handling the issue is to move the whole
> driver needing non-free firmware into non-free. Those may be
> categorized as non-free drivers (as in drivers in non-free).

Yes, they may be categorised that way, but the problem is the other
direction. All that the proposition wants to allow is a non-free
driver, but the proposition does not want to allow any non-free

In other words:

 1) a whole driver needing non-free firmware that is in the non-free
    archive is a "non-free driver".

 2) But a driver that is in itself non-free, but runs on the main CPU
    in the kernel is also a "non-free driver".

As I understood it, it was the intent of the proposition to allow "1)"
but not "2)". However, with MJ Ray's wording, it can very easily be
read as allowing "2)" - because that's what it actually says.


Reply to: