Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Vincent Bernat dijo [Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 10:46:56PM +0200]:
> Back to the vote, another option would be to not consider firmware (not
> running on the CPU) as software and we keep the 100% free software images
> with non-free firmware included. This implies this new component should only
> include firmware (there were discussions to broaden its use in the past).
>
> I can briefly rehash the rationale: firmware were previously shipped in a
> ROM with the hardware and they have been moved to being loaded by the OS
> instead for various reasons (cost, ease of update), but this does not
> fundamentally change their nature, except that we have to distribute them.
> There is no difference in the level of "freeness" we provide to the user,
> but there is a huge difference in usability.
I think this would not fly. Back in 2004, the "Editorial amendments"
GR¹ that led to several long mail threads²,³,⁴ (well, our project was
way more hostile 18 years ago than what it is today!), but most
particularly, the thread started by our then-Release Manager Anthony
Towns⁵.
¹ https://www.debian.org/vote/2004/vote_003
² https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00910.html
³ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01115.html
⁴ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01488.html
⁵ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg01929.html
Of course, it is not set in stone -- but these threads, and
particularly the last one, did shape Debian's work long-term. They did
carry a _lot_ of beneficial stuff (i.e. the firmware is no longer
bundled within Linux source), but Sarge's release was delayed at least
by a year from the original plans.
There are many, many, many (, many, many, many... Did I mention we
were more verbose and had stricter habits of beating dead horses until
their fleas were also dead?) mails where this discussion is
re(tro)hashed.
Reply to: