Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes: > 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.) What I'm specifically objecting to is that if Steve's proposal were implemented I believe the result would violate our social contract that the Debian system is 100% free. There are many problems following from that initial problem: the one you describe in your first paragraph is one, that I agree is a problem, but not the only one. Another problem is the ability to distribute the installer. Even when non-free work is not executed by hardware during installation (e.g., by user choice) does not mean all is well: You usually need to comply with non-free licensing terms to be able to distribute non-free works. If they are included in the Debian installer by default, even if they are not run by the CPU or other hardware on your system, we would still be in violation with the social contract. Another problem is that our social contract becomes meaningless if we intentionally violate it ourselves. I think I'm missing a better problem statement to motivate any changes here. The ones I've tried to understand, by watching Steve's presentation this year and reading earlier mailing list posts, does not convince me: it appears to boil down to a desire to help more people be able to install Debian and join the community. That desire is understandable, but does not motivate compromising the social contract to me. We had the same problem installing free software on hardware requiring non-free software in the 1990s, and we'll have them as long as there is hardware that require non-free software. We can give up, or we can continue to provide a meaningful alternative to that situation. What surprises me is that there is any need of a change: the Debian project accepts non-free works and distribute non-free installers for anyone who wants them. So the practical problems facing people requiring non-free software appears solved or possible to solve. As you suggest in your final paragraph, maybe the issue is "merely" about the cost-tradeoff between having one installer and having two installer. One solution is to only have a free installer then, since there appears to be a lot of work involved to cater for all various kind of non-free content out there. If there are volunteers to work on a non-free installer, I wouldn't want to stop them, just like I wouldn't want them to stop work on a free installer. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature