Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Hi Ansgar,
On 8/19/22 17:09, Ansgar wrote:
I don't see a difference between having non-free files in the archive
and non-free files on the installation images. If having individual
non-free files was not acceptable then we would have to define the
archive not part of Debian as well.
Yes, and the DSC explicitly does that in paragraph 5.
That is my point: with the current DSC, the Installer images cannot be
"part of Debian" according to this definition, because that would
misrepresent the license as being DFSG compliant.
There *is* an important difference between the availability of non-free
packages and their inclusion on installation media: the installation
media includes many of these, and all of their licenses need to be
followed by all users downloading these images regardless of whether
they actually need a particular package.
Thus, we need a third kind of software between "vetted to be DFSG
compliant as promised in the DSC" and "you're entirely on your own
because this package is not officially part of Debian" for this to be
useful for users.
In addition the Social Contract explicitly asks people building
installation images[1] to include the "contrib" and "non-free" parts of
the archive. With this change we just follow that ourselves 😼
Yes, and that very same sentence instructs people to be wary of
licensing issues when doing so. The same requirement applies to us as well.
Simon
Reply to: