Tobias Frost <tobi@debian.org> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 07:29:05AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> My reason for using Debian is that I can rely on getting a 100% free
>> system, and then add non-free works on top of it when I chose to do so.
>>
>> For example, I install the firmware-iwlwifi package on my laptop because
>> I haven't been bothered to replace the wifi module with an Atheros wifi
>> module yet, even though I bought it five years ago. This flexibility
>> suits me well, and it does not seem to be in conflict with the
>> flexibility you appear to desire: using a non-free installer to install
>> these things automatically for you. My flexibility will no longer be
>> permitted by Proposal A and E.
>
> As you keep repeating that:
> Proposal A and E explictly states:
>
> The included firmware binaries will normally be enabled by default where the
> system determines that they are required, **but where possible we will include
> ways for users to disable this at boot (boot menu option, kernel command line
> etc.).**
And also:
We will publish these images as official Debian media, replacing the
current media sets that do not include non-free firmware packages.
> You still have the flexibilty. You still can make the non-free firmware inert bits.
> The installer will still not *require* these bits to function.
I disagree. The installer will contain the non-free bits, and thus will
not work as intended without them under the A/E proposals. I cannot
download the non-free installer and use/redistribute it under a
DFSG-compatible license. That has been my main problem with A all
along, and I believe it violates DSC1: Debian will be 100% free.
/Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature