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

Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change

Hi Russ,

On 9/7/22 21:58, Russ Allbery wrote:

Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> writes:

Do users have the right to redistribute the installer?

In this proposal it's left unspecified (in other words, it's not an
inherent position of the Social Contract one way or the other), mostly
because I'm trying to keep the change as simple as possible and
redistribution of non-free software, in general, may depend on exactly how
and what the user is doing.  In practice, I would expect it to be a
problem if a typical user couldn't and we would deal with that problem as
part of the normal bug handling process.

I agree that from a practical standpoint, this is unlikely to be a problem. The new language for the DSC also solves the conflict, but it is a regression for user -- before, anything "official" could always be redistributed because it had to fulfill the DFSG in order to be considered.

The exception this carves out allows us to call the new installer "official", but does not give users any guarantees beyond the old DSC#5, which is basically "you have to check all the licenses for yourself."

We might want to have a commitment that goes further than that, e.g. have a minimum set of criteria for firmware as well, as a service to users.


Attachment: OpenPGP_0xEBF67A846AABE354.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: