Re: Changing how we handle non-free firmware
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 08:25:44PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> 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*,
Exactly.
> but they most likely will *not* be in "non-free" when we come to make
> the changes. "non-free-firmware" != "non-free".
I understood that part.
> Please tweak your
> wording to be more flexible and cover what we're aiming to do.
I think we have a different view on which proposal is the most flexible. And I
understand that you want my proposal to cover what you are aiming at.
>
> --
> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
> "This dress doesn't reverse." -- Alden Spiess
Reply to: