Re: Possible draft non-free firmware option with SC change
Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org> writes:
> No, not like now. Today we and our users can chose to download non-free
> content if they want. Some do. Some don't. With Steve's proposal, as
> I understand it, that choice will be taken away.
So, just to see if I understand, the part that you're specifically
objecting to is the willingness of the installer to load non-free firmware
before starting to prompt the user for their preferences, combined with
the lack of an installer that has no non-free firmware in it?
My understanding of the proposal is that the point of loading firmware as
needed is to get graphics and sound working early for accessibility
reasons. I personally do consider that more important than ensuring that
no non-free software is ever used, but I can certainly see why this would
be a point of principled disagreement. Is that the part that you're
objecting to? Or is it the mere presence of non-free software in the
installer image, even if you're prompted before any of it is used? Or
something else?
There are certainly arguments in favor of maintaining an entirely
DFSG-free installer. I don't think anyone would deny that; I think the
only dispute there is over whether the benefits of having that installer
around exceed the costs of maintaining it and explaining to users which
one to pick. (And like any other work tradeoff, presumably the tradeoff
would look differently the more people volunteer to help.)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: