Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

[Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:39:57AM +0200, 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
> lines.
> 
> ==================
> 
> 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.

I can interprete that as having non-free available and installed by default
is acceptable, as long as there is a way not to use the non-free part.

> 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.

As you indicate yourself, this is an interpretation of the SC. I would
really prefer that such a question was not open to interpretation and
that the SC was changed to make it more clear what we mean.

I don't actually understand what this part of your text is saying. Are
you saying that an image with non-free software on it is non-official
because it's not part of the Debian system? That is not something I read
in that text.

I would also like to point out that the Secretary has the power to
adjudicates any disputes about interpretation of the constitution, but
not about the foundation documents.


Kurt