Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
Hi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 03:11:25PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
> DSC 1 says we will never "require the use of a non-free component". To me,
> this is the major relevant issue.
Nothing in Debian requires any non-free component. Require would be:
can't be used without, which clearly is not true.
> Proposal A will use non-free-firmware by default, but "where possible...will
> include ways for users to disable this". Without the "where possible", I
> think this opt-out is compatible with the DSC. However, if it is not
> possible to disable the non-free-firmware, then it feels like the system is,
> in fact, requiring it. Thus this option, as worded, feels potentially
> incompatible with the DSC.
It is always possible to disable it: remove the entry from the
sources.list and the packages.
Also, you may want to explain why the installer is part of the system at
large. Also please explain it in the context of DSC 4, the sections of
the DSC don't stand on it's own.
> d. The Secretary declares the option invalid and strikes it from the GR.
> This feels heavy handed given that other remedies are available,
> most notably (b), which is available even after (and if) A wins.
I fail to see where the secretary may do that. The supermajority rules
are declarative, they don't need to be invoked.
> e. If Proposal A wins, the entire GR is declared invalid. This is the
> thing I'm objecting to.
I fail to see where this is allowed.
Bastian
--
One does not thank logic.
-- Sarek, "Journey to Babel", stardate 3842.4
Reply to: