Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > I think there was consensus to introduce the non-free-firmware > section > and move the non-free firmware blobs there. I'm wondering what we > need > to do next?
While it's good that at least something happens it's really sad and kinda disturbing to see that a more narrow-minded solution is taken, while a better proposal lies on the table. Especially since the non-free-firmware seems to make it less likely, that a non-open could ever happen. When Debian is anyway about to add new suites and people will have to adapt to that, why not implementing a more powerful schema that not only allows to opt-in to closed-source firmware, but also allows to, at the same time, opt-out of other closed-source software, while allowing at the same time to opt-IN to non-free, but open software? It'll be just one further suite that needs to be added, gaining far more possibilities. - non-free (as the current non-free, excluding anything that would need to go to non-open) - non-open (everything from non-free for which there are no sources available) - non-open/firmware (firmware that would be in non-open) perhaps arguably a 4th one: - non-free/firmware (i.e.that would be firmware that is open but not e.g. freely distributable, but does that even exist?) Alternatively one could just have: - non-free (as the current non-free, excluding anything that would need to go to non-open) - non-open (everything from non-free for which there are no sources available) - firmware (any non-free or non-open firmware) So again, what's wrong with the proposal I've made few days ago in #809705? It doesn't seem to require much more technical work, just moving packages and it's a far more powerful solution. Sincerely, Philippe.
