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

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



On 2022/09/09 18:37, Bdale Garbee wrote:
"Jonathan Carter (highvoltage)" <jcc@debian.org> writes:

I do think some parts are important to include though, how about:

I disagree strongly on this.

We should work REALLY hard to have the SC capture the commitments we're
making to our users, and then stop.  Specifically, we should avoid
including text that attempts to tell them what they need to do, such as:

We encourage software vendors who make use of non-free packages
to carefully read the licenses of these packages to determine whether
they can distribute it on their media or products.

If you really think we need to say this to downstream consumers /
distributors of our work, I'm sure we can find a way to do that.  But
the Social Contract is the wrong place.  It is, and must remain, an
articulation of our values and the associated commitments we're making
to our users.  The fewer words it must contain to achieve those
objectives, the better.

I happen to agree with you, although at the same time, we can't make hard promises on some things and then also purposefully go ahead and do something that's the complete opposite.

If we were to include any non-free software/firmware on something that's called official Debian installer media that is said to conform to our standards, then we either can't include such software or we need some form of exception to our standards that is explained somewhere prominently.

If we ship non-free firmware/software (the lines between those have become *very* blurred, as seen with GPU drivers especially), and pretend that the current DFSG/SC applies, then I think we're being very dishonest and that is worse to me than the problems you have listed.

-Jonathan


Reply to: