Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Brian Thomas Sniffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, Marco. We all understand the model you propose, based around the >> idea "all firmware is essentially hardware, even if it's clearly a >> file that has to be there on disk for a driver to function". An >> equally valid model has been proposed around the idea that all >> software is software, and anything that can't be touched from software >> is hardware. > > Two issues: > > 1) The social contract doesn't give us any leeway here. There's no > way to claim that hardware doesn't have to conform to the DFSG, and > there's no way to claim that large parts of Debian don't require that > hardware.
Sure it does. The Debian Free Software Guidelines only apply to software. Hardware is hard, not soft. > 2) The contents of an eeprom can generally be touched from software. You > need a firmer basis for your line. That... requires some thought. I don't mean to say that *all* drivers for firmware-using devices must go in contrib. Merely that those drivers which Depend, in the policy sense, on non-free software must go in contrib, and that any loadable firmware is software. Whether it's a Dependency depends on the individual case -- a device that ignores its firmware isn't a dependency, a driver that can drive prelaoded devices is a Suggestion, and so on. -Brian -- Brian Sniffen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
