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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> writes:

> Reading this in LWN reminds me that I would don't agree with this
> interpretation.

> I'd probably vote both the 3:1 option and the 1:1 above NOTA.  This is
> because I believe that if enough of us agree, we should update the
> Social Contract to explain how our non-free-firmware section works, and
> what the images provide.

My concern is that this in proposal A:

    We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
    current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.

and this in the Social Contract:

    The packages in these areas are not part of the Debian system,
    although they have been configured for use with Debian.

fit together oddly.  I think I can see the reasoning behind why folks
don't believe they conflict, but I must admit that my first reaction is
that they conflict.  I think the implication of them not conflicting is
that our official installers are not part of the Debian system?  Which
seems like an odd conclusion to me.

I don't really want to be the proponent of an option here, but I'm a bit
worried about not addressing this head-on.  So far, no one else who
supports including non-free firmware in the installer (as I do) has also
indicated that this bothers them, though, which to me argues against
adding yet another option for something that maybe only I care about.

(Proposal B and proposal C both avoid this problem.  I personally prefer
proposal A, though.)

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)              <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: