Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2005 at 11:44:17PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > > One reason for the DFSG's modifiability and source requirements is to > > preserve our ability to fix things. I see no reason why we shouldn't > > insist on that for firmware just as we do for openoffice.org. > > You don't have that freedom now. Your PC is full of firmware that you > don't have source to, probably can't change and probably can't recompile > anyway. It's your motherboard BIOS, it's in your hard drive, SCSI > controller, SATA controller, video card, ADSL/cable modem, your CRT or > LCD monitor and also your CPU. > > Don't you want to modify the source code for those too? > > I hear you saying "but Debian doesn't distribute that software so it's > OK". No need to bother repeating it. I don't see how it changes > anything; you still don't have the source code. But if it's in EEPROM or > FLASH on the device you just pretend it isn't there because it makes you > feel better.
Huh? I'm not saying I pretend it isn't there. Do I want to modify the source code? No, because there's nothing I could do with it if I could. I'm saying "Debian doesn't distribute it." Does that change anything? Sure: it changes *what Debian distributes*. Is your principle the following? "If software of class X is distributed sometimes burned into hardware, then Debian should distribute other software of class X, even if it isn't free, for different hardware." But why? Why not say: "Debian distributes only free software"? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
