Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 01:02:31PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 18:03:30)
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 04:18:19PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > Quoting Bart Martens (2022-08-26 10:02:16)
> > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 07:06:01AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > > > [...] it lacks a detail I find crucial:
> > > > > Explicitly spelling out whether or not images containing non-free bits
> > > > > are official part of Debian or not. Personally I find it obvious that
> > > > > anything that would not be allowed into main also would not be treated
> > > > > as official part of Debian,
> > > >
> > > > I share the same concern as you: Steve's proposal would mean that installers
> > > > containing non-free firmware become official part of Debian. My text does not.
> > > >
> > > > > If Bart chose to extend the proposal to include that such media
> > > > > containing non-free bits (although permitted "alongside with the free
> > > > > media) would *not* be considered official part of Debian, then I would
> > > > > endorse the amended proposal.
> > > >
> > > > That would be repeating what's already true. My text includes only things that
> > > > I propose to change. So what is off/unofficially today, remains that. It's like
> > > > "the name of the project remains Debian". Why would I mention that.
> > > >
> > > > Does this cover your concern?
> > >
> > > It clarifies that my reading matches your intended reading. Thanks!
> >
> > Haa wonderful.
> >
> > > Unfortunately it does not cover my concern that the text is ambiguous -
> > > i.e. despite intent your choice of words can lead voters to vote for
> > > this text but with varying expectations, which is a very bad situation.
> >
> > What exactly in my text do you mean?
>
> The part you *didn't* include (so I cannot point at it or quote it) ;-)
Indeed, I see now that it's the point you made earlier.
>
> > >
> > > I still urge you to make explicit what will not change. Perhaps borrow
> > > from Simons text, if you (like me) like that?
> >
> > Simon Richter's text would permit the Debian project to replace the free
> > installer by a non-free one. My text clearly mentions that the free installer
> > is still there. Didn't you prefer the free installer to remain available?
>
> Ha! Indeed Simon Richter's text omit explicitly mentioning that a
> non-free installer is in _addition_ to the already free one -
Indeed, it's a difference that is easily overlooked.
> although
> that intent is clear from his more elaborate text before the concrete
> draft ballot text.
Very true, it's not in the draft ballot text, my point exactly.
>
> ...or paraphrased in your style: His text doesn't say "replace".
I wrote "would permit to replace", not "will replace".
>
> Perhaps you see now - through an example not your own - how being
> explicit helps avoid ambiguity?
True. Humans tend to read what's not written. That said, it is hard to prevent
all possible unintended interpretations.
>
>
> - Jonas
>
> --
> * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
> * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
> [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Reply to: