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.
I think the problem is with "non-free section". I think Steve looks at
that like the non-free-firmware section is now allowed. I suggest you
just rewrite it as: "containing non-free software from the Debian
archive".
Kurt
Reply to: