[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 11:00:25PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> 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".

Hi Kurt,

Yes, let's do that, thanks. So here is the adapted proposal C:


The Debian project is permitted to make distribution media (installer images
and live images) containing non-free software from 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.


The modification:
Old: containing packages from the non-free section of the Debian archive
New: containing non-free software from the Debian archive

The old phrase was misunderstood as if this proposal would be opposing the
addition of a new section named non-free-firmware. The new phrase better
reflects that software in section non-free-firmware is also covered.

Then why not simply mention section non-free-firmware? Well, this proposal is
meant to be more future proof. This proposal is applicable to an installer
using the non-free-firmware section, and also to the existing non-free
installer. And to any future designs of non-free installers.

My subjective comparison of the available proposals so far:

- Proposal A replaces the free installer by one containing non-free firmware.
- Proposal B gives the free installer less visibility than the non-free one.
- Proposal C keeps the free installer and no longer hides the non-free ones.
- Proposal D would be equivalent to NOTA in my understanding.

Proposal C could use some more seconding. If you find that proposal C is a
valid option on the ballot (regardless of what you'll later vote for), then
you're most welcome to add your seconding.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: