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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

On 2022-08-23 04 h 39, Simon Josefsson wrote:
As far as I can tell, both Steve's and Gunnar's proposal would make
Debian less of a free software operating system than it is today.  That
makes me sad.  My preference for an outcome would be along the following


We continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §1
which says:

    Debian will remain 100% free

    We provide the guidelines that we use to determine if a work is
    "free" in the document entitled "The Debian Free Software
    Guidelines". We promise that the Debian system and all its components
    will be free according to these guidelines. We will support people
    who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. We will
    never make the system require the use of a non-free component.

Therefor we will not include any non-free software in Debian, nor in the
main archive or installer/live/cloud or other official images, and will
not enable anything from non-free or contrib by default.

We also continue to stand by the spirit of the Debian Social Contract §5
which says:

    Works that do not meet our free software standards

    We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that
    do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. We have
    created "contrib" and "non-free" areas in our archive for these
    works. The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
    although they have been configured for use with Debian. We encourage
    CD manufacturers to read the licenses of the packages in these areas
    and determine if they can distribute the packages on their CDs. Thus,
    although non-free works are not a part of Debian, we support their
    use and provide infrastructure for non-free packages (such as our bug
    tracking system and mailing lists).

Thereby re-inforcing the interpretation that any installer or image with
non-free software on it is not part of the Debian system, but that we
support their use and welcome others to distribute such work.



I disagree with you, but I understand the rationale. I think having such an option on the ballot makes sense.


  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xE1E5457C8BAD4113.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: