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

Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:33:51PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 05:26:10PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Bart Martens wrote:
>> >On Sun, Sep 04, 2022 at 03:43:36AM +0700, Judit Foglszinger wrote:
>> >> > I hereby propose the following alternative text to Steve's original proposal.
>> >> > 
>> >> > =================================
>> >> > 
>> >> > The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
>> >> > and live images) containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian
>> >> > archive available for download alongside with the free media in a way that the
>> >> > user is informed before downloading which media are the free ones.
>> >> > 
>> >> > =================================
>> >> 
>> >> Wondering if this should be s/non-free section/non-free-firmware section/
>> >
>> >Thanks for asking. The short answer is no. I kept my proposal very short,
>> >keeping the focus on the smallest possible action we can do for helping those
>> >users that need non-free firmware: allowing ourselves to advertise non-free
>> >installers just as visible as our free installer. Moving non-free firmware to a
>> >separate section might be useful, but it is in my view not part of that
>> >smallest possible action. So what's my position on such new section? Well, what
>> >is not mentioned is not proposed and not opposed. That's all. - B.
>> Argh. So this does *not* work with the plan that we have *already
>> started*, where we're going to move firmware things to
>> non-free-firmware instead. Please switch to "non-free and/or
>> non-free-firmware sections" in your text.
>I'm surprised. Please read what is written. Proposal C leaves open whether such
>new section would be added in the future. So if proposal C would win, then the
>started work you describe can continue. Proposal C uses the term "non-free"
>because that is where all non-free packages are still residing today.
>Does this cover your concern?

No, it doesn't. Your words may cover where those packages are *today*,
but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free". Please tweak your
wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do.

Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: