| Theodore Ts'o 2004-04-02, 12:33 am |
| On Fri, Apr 02, 2004 at 03:48:27AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Let me try to summarize the different opinions in this thread:
>
> 1. a 300 kB binary firmware is DFSG-free
>
> 2. binary firmware must go to non-free
> this implies that the installer will no longer be able to install Debian
> on several computers
It also implies that Debian CD distributors will very likely be forced
to include non-free for the forseeable future, and that it makes it
much more likely that the Debian Organization will have to continue to
distribute non-free, or make sure there is a very close coordination
with some separate (at least on paper) organization which supports
non-free.
This is not necssarily a bad thing, since it keeps the free software
fanatics happy (evil binary-only firmware kept out of the core Debian,
which is obviously more important than any kind of considerations of
our users) as well as the pragmatists happy (it will be a lot harder
for folks to claim that there are OSS replacements for all of
non-free, and so it is much more difficult to make arguments that
non-free should not be supported, distributed, or included in
sources.lists by default by the installer).
>
> 3. acknowledge that binary firmware is required, and make an
> exception for it
>
> A GR is perhaps too big for this issue.
I don't see another way of settling this besides a GR, myself.
> The typical Debian solution would be to implement opinion 3 via
> downgrading the bug or a "sarge-ignore" tag by the release manager or
> one of his assistants.
Wouldn't the typical Debian solution first involve huge amounts of
flaming first, this being much more important/fun than doing any kind
of technical work, such as fixing release-critical bugs? :-)
No wait, we've already done that.....
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
|